Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 28, 1996)
i MONDAY: Opinion TUESDAY: Politics WEDNESDAY: Opinion THURSDAY: Politics FRIDAY: Opinion editorials, letters, commentary and perspective a BY MAIL: P.0. Box 3159, Eugone, OR 97403 BY PHONE: (541)346-5511 BY E-MAIL: ode@oregon. uoregon. edu IN PERSON: Suite 300, EMU Sex policy not equal to assualt problem ■ OUR OPINION: The University’s proposed student sex code is on the right road but moving in the wrong direction t is a rare campus issue that attracts na tional attention. We all know it doesn’t take much to stir University debate -L. when one Christian men’s group using campus facilities can cause a collective up roar. But for “Good Morning America” and CBS News to come calling, the issue needs to amount to more than campus figure heads’ meaningless ramblings. It actually needs to be important. So when a campus task force revised the Student Conduct Code so students must re ceive explicit permission from their part ner to have sex and then announced the proposed changes, the reaction was un derstandably surprising. News of the proposal, along with the usual sound bites from directors, deans and students, appeared in publications across the f ( country. The fact that a univer- I \/ sitymay be willing to go as far \ in preventing sexual misbehav ior as Antioch College did in 1991 was important to not just / —jq one campus but to the whole / / ^ nation. / / We think the issue is im- \ portant too. Any student who Nv has had sex, is having sex or is n. ' even thinking about sex would be \ crazy not to think the same. In the pro posed policy, students would have to communicate very clearly their request and/or their permission to their partner to have sex. It wouldn’t matter who they were, where they were or what kind of re lationship they had with our partner. The permission would need to be communicat ed verbally, perhaps even on paper. To call this policy extreme is easy and in many ways, the label is true. But keep in mind what the task force was up against when drafting the policy. On an campus where 78 survivors of sexual assault sought help last year at Sexual Assault Support Services but only ten percent reported it, the policy almost seems valid — almost. One of the major changes in the new pol icy is the specific definitions of “sexual as sault” and “explicit consent.” But ironically, this alteration is also the poli CHRIS HUTCHINSOWEmerald or violated in some way by the suspect. Often, the cy s primary weakness. They are too broad and too dangerous. Currently when sexual assault survivors report the crime, they open themselves up to mass confusion and ultimately, a war of words. The burden of proof is on them. Survivors must prove they were assaulted suspect denies the assault. And more often than not, the survivor feels more vulnera ble and like a target than during the actual sexual encounter. This is why survivors don’t usually re port the incident. And who could blame them? The new policy would attempt to eliminate this gray area, an area where the truth is so hard to find. But what the task force failed to realize was the gray area will still exist, no matter how many restrictions are placed on sex. Sexual assault is, by nature, a private crime and hard to prove physically — es pecially if actual intercourse did not occur. No matter how many questions are asked and precautions taken, ultimately a sexual crime will come down to one person’s word versus another’s. The new policy would simply shift the questions to “Did Partner A ask before he or she initiated?” and “Did Partner B give consent before Partner A initiated?” instead of “Did he or she rape you?” Proving or disproving sexual assault will never be simple. And throwing some for mal language and regulations into the mix won’t make the process any easier. On a wider level, the new policy is glar ingly impractical; no one will follow it. Sex is not only inherently private but most of ten spontaneous. Asking for permission just doesn’t happen and won’t happen — at least not in so many words. Even authors of the new policy admit that believing its rules will be followed by most of the student body is close to delusionary. Fortunately, common sense has pre vailed somewhere. At small Antioch College where it all began, they recently changed their policy to include "non-ver bal, verbal, physical gestures or other pre viously agreed upon communication” as consent. In other words, sexual permission — as right-minded, ordinary students per ceive it — was finally included in the poli cy. Until changes similar to this one are im plemented into the new policy, displaying some level-headedness and respect for the nature of most sexual encounters, the Uni versity will be making a mistake. The world of sexual assault is an ex tremely terrible and confusing one and can only be fought by taking equally extreme measures. Some aspects of it, like prosecu tion, may never be solved. But by being ex treme in our solutions, we can’t forget how to be smart. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. P 0. BOX 3159. EUGENE. OREGON 97403 The Oregon Daily Emerald is published daily Monday through Fri day during the school year and Tuesday and Thursday during the sum mer by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co. Inc. at the University of Oregon, Eugene. Oregon A member of the Associated Press, the Emerald operates independently of the University with offices at Suite 300 of the Erb Memorial Union. The Emerald is private property The unlawful removal or use of papers is prosecutable by law. Editor-In-Chief: Steven Asbury Managing Editor Jennifer Carter Night Editor Steven Asbury Community: Jennifer Schmitt, editor. Jean Bond, Christian Hill Entertainment: Nicole Kreuger, editor Jesse Stephenson Higher Education: Tamyra Howser, m-depth. Laura Cadiz. Benjamin Kwasney Opinion: Ashley Bach, editor Chris Hutchinson, illustrator. Brian Di amond. Larry Haftl, Sonja Sherwood Politic*: Shana Cohn, editor. Doug Irving Student Activities: Kristin Bailey, editor Angie Suchy, Tom Potter Sports: Mark McTyre, editor. Andrea DeYoung, assistant editor Chris Hansen, Ryan Frank. Ryan Halvorsen Copy Desk: Thom Schoenborn. copy chief. Sarah Kickler, Mike Schmierbach. Kendra Smith Fomentation: Dennis Bolt, editor Matt Garton Photography: Mathew Stiffler, editor. Andrew Brackensick, Joe Bunik, Amanda Erickson, Shannon Kilduff, Chad Patteson Freelance: Lara Pittman, editor On-Line: Nicholas Stiffler General Manager: Judy Riedl Advertising Becky Merchant, director Anne Amador. Lee Yen Beh, 7 irco Chmg, Yujin Chi. Matt Johnson, Anne Miller, Trina Shanaman. Pose Soil. Matt Solomon. Greg Walsh sssified: T. manager. Natasha Lumpkin. Debbie Levy. leather Moye " Ross, manager Ingrid White, coordinator. 'it Daniel, Trevor Kearney,Tara Knight, Melissa vwta. Allison Stormo, Mike Young ' ne supervisor Judy Connolly Jeff Johnson, F erenc Rakoczi .(541)346-5511 .(541)346-3712 .(541)346-5512 .(541)346-4343 LETTERS No fear This is concerning Rodney Schaffer, the “smart and safe” doctor who wanted to remind the lone, young and vulnerable women of the University that they are not safe (ODE, Oct. 21). How is it that he can run where he likes, yet women cannot? Being a woman, I never “took back the night” because I never denied my freedom in the first place. I stay at work after dark and make evening runs to the grocery store or to meet friends for coffee. My morning runs and evenings have always been a time of peace and unwinding for me. I will not give that up. Who says it is my own fault if I am attacked? Do you? Why then am I to take the blame and not the attacker? If I lived in fear the rest of my life, I am still not guaranteed to be safe. I will not live in fear because some one tells me to. Statistically, I am more likelv to be assaulted by someone I know, and I have known women who have expe rienced this to be true. Schaffer did not indicate whether he ran at night or dur ing the day. Regardless, as his letter stood, the tone was con descending and full of blame and fear on the part of women. Sita Perez English Voting will Even the Krishnas and pan handlers have been outdone this year by the fervor and in trusiveness of the student voter registration drive. I would like to remind the student body that no one is compelled to talk God or give change and that register ing to vote does not compel one to participate in this election. If you are unhappy with the presidential choices selected for you by faceless party offi cials, advertising agencies and their business sponsors, or if you are apathetic about politics in a world ruled by money and bullets, not votes, then reiusing to vote is a legitimate option. You may refuse to choose the lesser evil. Your duty is not to cast your ballot as the University’s “Reg ister & Vote” propaganda claims, but to do with it as you see fit. You may write in your own candidates, “none of the above,” or any other comments. Or you may refuse to cast your ballot at all. I won’t be wasting my vote on a system that elects unwant ed bosses and decides irrele vant issues, and I reserve the right to complain. Feel free to join me. Jesse Harrington Journalism SETA table Students for the Ethical Treatment of Animals invite you to take advantage of a rar e opportunity taking place on Oct.30-Nov.l. In the EMU main lobby, we will table where we’ll he u ng any cosmetics and to :• that were tested on ar' , Tin a in protest of animat :: ng Tor vanity, we will send these products back to . < neamies along with a petition you can sign to make a stand against these cruel tests. We will also be providing cruelty-free shop ping guides and other informa tion. Animal tests are painful and extremely inhumane. We want to call attention to the fact that there a number of cosmetic and toiletry companies that don’t test on animals, which proves that these acts are undoubtedly unnecessary. This is a perfect way to become an educated and conscientious shopper. So stop by! Megan Petersen Psychology LETTERS POLICY The Oregon Daily Emerald will at j tempt to print all letters containing , comments on topics of interest to ! the University community. Letters to the ulitor must be limit | ed to no more i 250 words, legi | signed 1 mtification of ied when the I letter is sub: ■I. ■ ?s the right to ’ ny letter for length or style.
