Defining sexual assault

As the ‘Prince’ reported last week, the University recently reviewed its sexual harassment and assault policies and redefined sexual misconduct.

The changes are small — a few words here, a sentence there. These changes essentially increase the breadth and specificity of the definition. In addition to sexual harassment and assault, sexual misconduct now includes sexually inappropriate conduct such as “stalking, lewdness, voyeurism or obscene gestures.”

What is more interesting, however, are the parts that remained the same. In particular, I am thinking of the University’s definition of sexual assault.

According to “Rights, Rules, Responsibilities,” sexual assault, including rape, is “1. any sexual physical contact that involves the use or threat of force or violence or any other form of coercion or intimidation; 2. any sexual physical contact with a person who is unable to consent due to incapacity or impairment, mental or physical,” which usually refers to being asleep or under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Rape includes “stranger rape” and “acquaintance rape.”

It is odd that, though it is noted that impaired people cannot give consent, there is no other mention of the word “consent.” The definition does not allow for the possibility that someone could be neither drunk nor coerced and still be raped.

This may be a hard idea for some to swallow. Certainly the common image is of a stranger jumping out from behind bushes and attacking you or a creepy boyfriend slipping something into your drink. But not all rapes are so malicious. Ninety percent of college rapes are acquaintance rapes. In a culture that promotes casual sex, going with the heat of the moment and not ruining the moment by talking about it, it is possible for rape to happen unintentionally. One thing can lead to another very quickly, and if no one takes a moment to seek consent, you do not really know what your partner wants or where his or her limits are.

This is why consent is so very important. It makes the gray cases clearer — ideally, it eliminates them. Consent gives us a way to really create change. We can throw psychopaths in prison to make us feel safer, but in reality, this will have little effect on rape statistics. What we really need to do is to change culture. We need to move away from the objectification of sex as something to attain and toward a norm of seeking enthusiastic consent — when one’s sexual partner not only doesn’t say no, but says yes. (In addition to many groups across the country, Sexual Harassment/Assault Advising, Resources and Education promotes the use of enthusiastic consent.)

This type of change can only come about through dialogue. Rape is not a comfortable topic, but we need to acknowledge that it happens if we are going to change our culture. The University could have taken steps to initiate this dialogue through the policy review. A better definition of sexual assault would have been a good start. Though the definition serves primarily a disciplinary purpose, it does set the stage for any discussion of what behavior is acceptable and what is not. The University’s stance implicitly educates us.

Additionally, involving students in the policy review could have sparked discussion. In many other cases, the University has established task forces that include students — for example, task forces on alcohol, the eating clubs, Greek life and gender inequality in leadership. Yet students were not involved in this decision.

It is true that the University and SHARE aim to create dialogue about sexual assault through other avenues, including such programs as “Sex on a Saturday Night,” but their audience is limited. This policy review provided an opportunity to include sophomores, juniors and seniors in the discussion and to increase awareness of what exactly constitutes rape and what is consent. We need a campus-wide discussion that extends beyond freshman week and residential college adviser groups, beyond SHARE meetings and study breaks. We need to create a safe space in which people feel comfortable setting their own boundaries and where other people respect those boundaries, where people ask rather than assuming what others want.

The University cannot do this alone with a top-down approach and it cannot magically create dialogue and awareness. But it does have a role to play in facilitating and encouraging such discussions, and it should take every opportunity to do so.

Miriam Geronimus is an ecology and evolutionary biology major from Ann Arbor, Mich. She can be reached at mgeronim@princeton.edu.