News and Excitement! SAFER and Beyond…

As Erin mentioned a couple of weeks ago, SAFER recently did a teach-in at the New School as part of “The Coming Resurrection,” a student-organized event to promote the development of a feminist community at the New School and get students thinking about the school’s sexual assault policy. SAFER had a blast with the students at the school and we’re excited by the momentum there seems to be for policy change there. Check out this article in the New School Free Press to read more about the event and get some ideas for an event at your school. Also some interesting back-and-forth about the place of feminist activism at a school with a reputation for being “progressive.”

In other SAFER news, I just posted about our happy hour event on November 9. Well, NOW it has its own flyer! So it’s official and you have to come! See you there…

On the Critical Hotness of Enthusiastic Consent

I am pleased to share some of the best, most comprehensive and most badass explanations of enthusiastic consent, “Sex Talk” below.  We at SAFER can’t emphasize enough how important it is that a sexual assault policy be sex positive. And I know at first glance that might have a strange ring to it, but gimme a minute and I’ll lay it out for you.

A comprehensive and usable understanding of consent is the absolute first step to preventing sexual violence.   In turn, a strong definition of consent in a sexual assault policy on a college campus is how to make policy sex-positive.  Policies should not simply “condone” healthy sexuality and “prohibit” assault, but actively encourage the community to engage in the practice of affirmative, enthusiastic consent.   If we are all engaging in the asking and telling of what we desire than we can also clearly point out instances for ourselves when our line was pushed or directly violated.  If we all share a deeper understanding of what it means to consciously engage in the sex you want to be having, than we will effectively eliminate victim blaming that comes along with so-called “gray rape.”  Prime examples include: “they were both so blitzed… who knows what actually happened” nights or the “well, they were making out on that couch for hours, so clearly that was a green light.” responses.  We can build a culture that values knowing what you want and having the mind to ask if it’s also what your partner wants.   We can extend that cultural value to creating clear community standards of what will happen when someone’s consent is violated and they want to take action for justice and perpetrator accountability.   It starts to slowly but surely un-do all of the awkwardess of uncertainty and amps up the hotness of getting (and giving!) a “hell, yes!”  Last week I wrote about “green dots” on campuses.  A commitment to enthusiastic consent in every sexual encounter you have is one of the biggest green dots you can earn.

For more on definitions of consent, check out this article in the Activist Resource Center. We also have a giant list of different definitions of consent that you can pull and mix and match with.  If you’re interested in this resource, please e-mail us at contact (@) safercampus (.) org

The second part of this whole equation, of course, is learning how to accept a “no, thanks” gracefully.   I’ll let you know when I come across more stunning graphic art covering the subject.  Big thank you to Maisha for permission to post her art!  You can see her other work here.

Save the Date: November 9, Have a Happy Hour (or 2) With SAFER

Put it in your calendar: Tuesday, November 9, we’re hosting a happy hour at 10 Degrees in the east village. We’ll be hanging out in the back room, waiting to see your lovely faces. $5 donation gets you a free drink ticket, and anything else you’re willing to donate gets our endless appreciation. Plus, after the first drink there is still a 2 for 1 happy hour special at the bar until 8!

Place: Ten Degrees (121 St. Marks Place, between 1st Ave and Ave A)
Date: November 9
Time: 5:30
Facebook Invite: Of course there is one

Hope to see you there!

When Meaning Well Isn’t Enough (One more response to the Yale frat)

I’ve been reading about the Yale situation all week (you know, the one where the DKE fraternity pledges chanted “no means yes, yes means anal” among other things). Ashley mentioned it here on Monday, and I’ve read a lot of great responses, both from Yale students and from other writers.

But today I watched the video for the first time (or listened, it’s mostly audio) and was really disturbed. Reading about it is gross. Hearing a large group of men chant those words, loud and aggressively, over and over is actually really frightening. And it was right after I listened that I read this interview Tracy Clark-Flory did over at Salon with a DKE brother who wasn’t involved. And though he repeats over and over how the behavior wasn’t representative of DKE as a whole, and none of the members would “condone sexual violence”—in fact they are all respectful of women!—I couldn’t find it in me to be sympathetic. I appreciate his honesty and the clear remorse and embarrassment, but there is an inability to connect the dots that I find really frustrating.

The anonymous DKE brother refers to the chanting as an “unfortunate joke,” notes that it was “wrong” and inappropriate” and points out that the frat apologized (actually I thought it was a pretty good apology, as these things go) and has been taking steps to make sure some kind of productive dialogue comes out of all this. But he maintains that the vile language isn’t indicative of any real misogyny, either at an individual level or within the fraternity system in general. When asked about the general association between frats and misogyny, he says:

The first reason is that fraternities are one of the few remaining all-male institutions still in existence, and therefore have become associated with the misogyny more typical of a previous time.

Well, I actually think that chanting “no means no, yes means anal” and “fucking sluts” is actually pretty indicative of our time. I see this tendency, among many young men and women,  to separate words from action. We’ve all heard it before—just because I’m calling something “gay” doesn’t mean I have anything against gay people; now, just because I’m chanting about raping a woman doesn’t mean I’d really do it. And I’m sure that the vast majority of the DKE brothers chanting that stuff don’t condone violence against women. In fact I’m sure most of them are perfectly nice guys. But language can be violent too. And just because you didn’t intend it to sound that way, doesn’t mean it can’t sound that way.

So it’s not enough to say “we didn’t mean it, and it doesn’t reflect our values.” It’s not even enough to recognize it as violent in its own right. You need to stop and consider how language like this became a “joke,” how anyone thought it was a funny/acceptable pledge chant, and how none of the men refused to go along with the plan. This doesn’t happen by accident—it happens because even really well-meaning people don’t think about the role of language in structural oppression. Or to put it simply: they don’t think about how words matter, or about how the words and the actual physical/sexual violence are both part of a culture that downplays violence against women. The fact is that even if you can cite a lot of social changes that denote a move away from “misogyny of a previous time,” what happened at Yale didn’t happen in a vacuum. It has a history, and the men chanting have a place in that history that they should be able to recognize.

I dunno. I’ve had a long week and I’m not sure how articulate I’m being. I think what it comes down to is this: I’ll be really happy when I’m living in a world where no one could, with any sincereity, claim that they truly respect women and don’t condone violence while also engaging in shit like this. Because in this perfect world, everyone will understand the inherent conflict in those words and actions, as well as the connection between words and action on a much larger scale.

Pledge to be Part of the Solution: Be the One

Via The Line, I just came across this new college-based campaign called Be the One from an organization called One Student. One Student was started by Kelly Addington and Becca Tieder, who have been doing violence prevention work on college campuses for years by talking to students about healthy sexual relationships, bystander intervention, and sexual assault. One Student takes their work to a new level, and includes a leadership program for students that focuses on building state-wide alliances, a bystander intervention program (inspired by the De Anza rape case we’ve written so much about).

But the backbone/entry-point into One Student seems to be their Be the One pledge, which has a lot of points we can all get behind, like:

  • I will use respectful language when talking to or about my partner(s), and when talking about sex and relationships in general.
  • I will respect my partner’s (or anyone I have sexual contact with) boundaries and will expect my partner(s) to respect me.
  • I will participate in campus/community events that promote sexual assault awareness.
  • I will find out what resources exist on my campus and program the phone numbers in my cell phone in case anyone needs them.
  • I will help my friends and family understand that regardless of what someone wears, how much they flirt or if they choose to drink, they do not deserve to be sexually assaulted.
  • If someone tells me they’ve been sexually assaulted I will believe them.

So check it out! And congrats to Becca and Kelly on the launch of their new org.

changing tides from red to green

I admit it, sometimes I get really tired of discussing the problem(s) of sexual violence/assault.  I believe that most feminist/anti-violence organizers come to a time when we GET IT – we understand the problem and the prevalence of sexual violence and rape culture.   What we don’t always have is the gratification of solution-oriented perspectives that pull us into the light of the possibility of a world free of sexual violence.

I recently had the pleasure of witnessing Dr. Dorothy Edwards live in action describing a down-to-earth and accessible bystander intervention program, Green Dot. Dr. Edwards owned the room as she explained a simple but powerful idea live in front of the audience of the MCASA (Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault) conference, Preventing Sexual Violence: A Team Approach for Campuses.   She definitely articulated the concept/program better than myself, but for the sake of avoiding plagiarism, I’ll put it in my own words from what I gathered last Thursday in MD.

The idea goes something like this:

Imagine a map of your community (for the sake of keeping things relatively simple here, let’s say your college campus).

Now take the ultimate bingo-blobber of your creative imagination, and make a red dot on your community map for every instance of violence happening on your campus.  For the sake of this mental exercise, violence is defined as any act of sexual assault, rape, stalking, or form of dating violence.  It also includes humiliation, coercion, threats, shaming and victim blaming.  Furthermore, and most importantly for this exercise, it includes every time those acts or behaviors were tolerated, ignored, laughed with, scoffed at, replicated or simply received/accepted with no form of intervention what-so-ever. We know the stats here – your imaginary map will quickly fill with a sea of red dots.  This is rape culture in action.  This is bystander apathy at its worst.  This is what we’re up against.

But now, let’s flip a switch of possibility.  For every act of intervention, for every attempt at raising awareness or active prevention of sexual violence – let’s blob a green dot instead of a red.  These green dots represent witnesses, bystanders to sexual violence who chose to do something, anything to take action and contribute to safety.

Dr. Edwards spelled it out pretty clearly for me – that every person has an obligation to do something, (really, anything!) to put a little more safety into our communities, and thus, the world.   Of course, I’m already on-board with this – but she framed it in a way that made it seem so deeply, innately easy.  There’s not just one way to put a green dot on the map.  In fact, there are at least three major pathways to doing something in the heat of the moment where a red dot is just about to take formation on your community map.  People can take action through any of the three options below:

1) Direct - directly address the behavior, act, words, gesture etc.
2) Delegate – recruit!  You don’t have to do this alone, find someone who will either do it for or at the very least, with you.
3) Distract – Diffuse the situation with anything.  (Examples include: telling someone that their car is getting towed, cutting in to dirty dance, starting up a riveting game of charades etc.)

In fact, here’s a giant list of concrete ways your can add a green dot to your map everyday.

We at SAFER have another idea to add to the list, something you can do without leaving the comforts of wherever you’re reading this online.  Our challenge to you is to use the Campus Accountability Project to put a Green Dot on your campus map.

Take the time to find out what your school (or your Alma Mater, or your local college/university) is doing to prevent and respond to sexual violence by checking out the entry in our policies database.  If your school is not in our database, contribute to the research so that future anti-violence activists can build off of your work.   You can submit your policy research here through our easy step-by-step form. (CAP submissions are for students only – if you are not a current student and want to see a school in the database, reach out to current campus activists!)  We want schools that both need an enormous amount of improvement and good examples of the best practices from around the country.  (For more on the Campus Accountability Project, please read more here)

Listen, we are accountable to each other’s safety, health and well-being.  SAFER can help you figure out how to make your school accountable to your safety and the safety of your community.   Help us build the infrastructure to contribute to future research on how to best remain solution-oriented so that we can all look forward to maps that are seas of green dots.

Marshall update & Yes Means Yes

My blogging muscles are not in great shape today so this will be a short post, but there are a couple of things I want to share. Last week I posted about efforts by student journalists at Marshall University to gather accurate crime data from their campus police department. That campus newspaper, the Parthenon, has since published a couple of follow-up pieces about the case that sparked their investigation and about the ensuing discovery of problematic practices in the security office. In one story, the Parthenon publishes details from the crime report about the alleged sexual assault — the information reporters originally requested but didn’t get from campus police. According to the report, a male and female victim reported an assault by three men; after several weeks of investigation, the MU Director of Public Safety halted the investigation, citing insufficient evidence. Interestingly, the Parthenon notes that it obtained this report not from campus police but from the Office of University Communications.

Later in the week, the Parthenon ran another piece about the larger story that’s come out of their work — that story being the discovery of inconsistencies  in MU’s crime reporting and the possible Clery Act violations. It turns out that MU failed to released its 2009 crime report by the deadline of October 1, something that Director Terry chalks up to confusion about when the deadline was. The local Charleston Gazette-Mail has also followed up on the story,  speaking to several faculty members who claimed never to have seen annual crime reports from previous years. I certainly hope that the  full details about these failures to properly make crime data available come to light, so that MU can implement better procedures. Timely annual publication of crime statistics is a key provision of the Clery Act, and “confusion” about when and how to make these reports available to the campus community is a pretty serious matter.

On a more positive note, I’ve just discovered that the very talented Jaclyn Friedman, editor of the Yes Means Yes collection, has started writing a column on healthy sexuality and sexual violence prevention at Amplify Your Voice.  I’ve been an admirer of Jaclyn’s work for years, and I’m sure she’ll have some fantastic things to say in this column. Check out her excellent post on “asking for it” to start!

There Is Only One Appropriate “Plan of Action”

Members of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity at Yale were recently caught on tape having a wonderful time while chanting, “No means yes.  Yes means anal.”

Delta Kappa Epsilon’s national board of directors has released a statement in response.

While I commend Delta Kappa Epsilon for “strongly condemning” the actions of the Yale chapter, that simply isn’t enough.  There is only one appropriate course of action, and that is to kick the Yale chapter out of the national fraternity.  Any other action will condone the actions of the Yale chapter.  Any other action will simply serve to reinforce every destructive stereotype people have about fraternity culture.

If Delta Kappa Epsilon wants to change those stereotypes, this is a chance to do it.

“The Line” Back in NYC Next Month

A quick heads up—if you haven’t yet seen Nancy Schwartzman’s documentary The Line (the backbone behind the Where is Your Line campaign), Women’s eNews and the National Sexual Violence Resource Center are hosting a screening and panel on November 10:

Drawing the Line: Sex and Consent… A Conversation about the Language of Rape
Wednesday, November 10, 2010 from 6:00pm until 8:00pm
6 Barclay St, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10007

Nancy will be there speaking alongside Joe Samalin of Men Can Stop Rape and Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute. It’s FREE and sure to be interesting. RSVP to or 212.244.1720 ext. 206

Colorado Senate Candidate Thinks Inviting Someone Over Implies Consent

I CANNOT get over this. It’s already been covered at Broadsheet and Alternet and some other places, but I was so pissed I wanted to flesh out the story a little more here. Ken Buck is currently running for U.S. Senate in the state of Colorado, but in 2005 he was district attorney in Weld County, Colorado. He’s now being questioned about this one time where he refused to try the case of a college student who had accused her boyfriend of rape. His reasoning? Well, among other things: she had invited him over to her house, they had a previous sexual relationship, she was drinking, and she had previously gotten pregnant by the accused (yeah, we’ll get to how extra-irrelevant that is in a minute).

Most coverage of this story has focused on Buck’s repeated claim that the fact that the student invited the man over, there was some kind of implied consent. EVEN THOUGH the accused stated on record that she had said no, and a third party present in the transcribed meeting mentions that the accused recognized “that he had done something wrong,
almost immediately, and certainly by the time he was done,” and he was actually “trying to get her conscious enough to apologize.” (Emphasis mine) A selection from the transcript (KB is Ken Buck, V is victim):

KB: Because when you look at what happened earlier in the night, all the circumstances, based on his statements and some of your statements, indicate that you invited him to come to your apartment… that you told him how to get in …. It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to have sex with him. Whether that you, at that time, were conscious enough to say yes or no… ?(147)

V: So you’re telling me that previous sexual relations is enough to provide consent, and you’re telling me that because of me calling him and because of previous sexual relations and because I invited him up and told him how to get in, that invited him up for sex…

(153) KB: I’m telling you that’s what the circumstances suggest, to people, including myself, who have looked at it. Although, you never said the word yes, but the appearance is of consent.

Buck also goes on to say, “The act of inviting him, appear to be consensual acts.” But let’s be clear, here. It’s not that Buck is trying to blame the victim. Oh no, of course not! It’s just that he knows it will be hard to “convince a Weld County jury that this wasn’t consensual.” Over the course of the transcript, he brings up multiple times that no prosecutor would take the case because of the inability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape occurred. Now, I’m not a lawyer. But I feel like when a woman is so drunk that someone is trying to get her conscious enough to apologize for not listening when she said no and pushed him away….well, that sounds like rape, no?

But even if we wanted to give Buck the benefit of the doubt and say he was just being honest with her about the likelihood that she would win this case in court (and let’s be honest, a lot of jurors do, sadly, think like Ken Buck). Even so, the extent to which even after he refuses to take the case he continues to pressure her into not pursuing it is really disgusting. And while doing so, he brings in another awesome rape myth: maybe she’s just making it up to get back at the guy!

(255) KB: Be aware of something, if this, if you file this motion, it will be very public, publicly covered event. There are a lot of things that I have a knowledge of, that I would assume (name of possible suspect redacted) knows about and that they have to do with, perhaps, your motives

V: I’m interested to hear more about that, my motives, for what this has been.

KB: You have, you have had HIS baby, and you had an abortion.

V: That’s false, that’s just false.

KB: Why don’t you clarify?

V: I did have a miscarriage; we had talked about an abortion. That was actually year and a half ago. So …

(268) KB: That would be something that you can cross-examine on, that would be “something that might be a motive for trying to get back at somebody.”

I don’t even know what to say about that. For one thing, the “accusation” about the abortion is insane. Buck happens to be extremely anti-choice, and I wonder about his motivations with bringing that up. But kind of “motivation” for accusing someone of rape is having a misscarriage???? It seems so clear that he is just trying to bully her—this is going to be very public, you’re going to have to talk about uncomfortable personal matters, and you’re not going to win anyway. THIS IS WHY RAPE CASES DON’T GET PROSECUTED. THIS IS WHY PEOPLE DON’T REPORT RAPES. Not once does this man say anything remotely supportive or empathetic or offer her any kind of alternative. He just tells her over and over, it looks like consent, no one is going to believe you, why are you wasting your time?

I’ve got to say though, as terrible as this transcript is to read, I was SO impressed with the young woman who reported the rape. This must have been a terrible meeting to sit through, and she really held her own. She stuck up for herself, she argued her case well, and the sarcasm in her disbelief…well it really jumps off the screen at you and I really felt proud reading her side.

(Update: As usual, Cara says it better!)