Opinion
Hamilton’s misguided sexual assault policies
By Sophie Gaulkin ’17
March 6, 2015
It is abundantly clear that Hamilton College needs to improve when it comes to sexual assault adjudication, especially against the backdrop of the federal investigation of Title IX violations against the College. There are many flaws in the policy—for most of which there is no clear answer at the moment—but I want to discuss one glaring fault in the sexual assault policy that is not explicitly stated or made known to students, which is problematic in itself.
Through talking with our Title IX coordinator, Meredith Harper Bonham, I learned that student organizations can lose their funding and their status as Hamilton-sanctioned organizations if an alcohol-related sexual misconduct complaint is filed and indirectly involves an organization. This could occur, for instance, if the organization was sponsoring the event where the incident occurred, and a previous complaint had been filed for a similar situation in which the organization as a whole is blameless. Firstly, I want to specify that all of my criticisms are restricted to instances in which the organization is not directly related to an act of sexual misconduct, assault or rape. Any organization or individual who condones such actions should not be allowed on campus. But more often than not, sexual assault is not organizational; for the most part, organizations do not tolerate acts of rape and are not responsible for the rapist’s actions. Therefore, they should not be threatened with the loss of funding or sanctioning unless they are directly responsible for the incident of sexual misconduct.
Imagine that by a student’s free will, they attend a party sponsored by their own organization and unintentionally drink alcohol to the point of incapacitation. If a rape occurs, why should the organization be threatened with elimination if another complaint comes up in the future, again through no fault of the organization? This policy obviously creates a huge disincentive to report acts of sexual misconduct, assault and rape in the Hamilton community. By reporting, survivors would essentially have to weigh a lengthy investigation that has no guarantees against the threat of their fellow team members or peers fail to support them, or possibly even turn against them for jeopardizing the existence of their beloved organization. Especially with the prevalence of victim-blaming and the tendency of survivors themselves to victim-blame, this added discouragement to report is disturbing. Fellow members of the organization may be less supportive of survivors overall, and even be inclined to be dishonest in an investigation if they fear losing funding or official sanctioning. Beyond that, this policy makes survivors feel like they are being punished when the organization they are affiliated gets in trouble for something that is entirely the fault of the person who committed the sexual offence. It is a truly upsetting message for Hamilton to send.
Whom does this policy hurt? It is certainly not the rapists who may or may not be part of the organization in question, and in any case should be removed from the organization—and the campus—altogether. This aspect of the policy unnecessarily hurts the organization that is indirectly and unintentionally involved in a case of sexual assault, as well as the survivor. Just as a survivor is not to blame for a rapist’s actions, an organization is not to blame when particular individuals fail to respect the bodily autonomy of others.
It is undeniable that the administration should do everything in its power to combat and prevent acts of sexual misconduct, but threatening organizations if a subsequent complaint emerges is absolutely counterproductive to the fight against sexual assault on college campuses. The administration and student organizations should do whatever they can to prevent instances of sexual assault. When sexual assault does happen and the organization is not directly responsible, they should not face harsh punishments that ultimately scare people from pursuing an investigation. Rather, we should train student leaders in bystander intervention, for example. This is likely to actuate positive change, as it would be advantageous for all organizations and individuals to have this training. Banning a blameless organization does nothing but discourage survivors from coming forward, which is the exact opposite of what the administration should be doing.
It is easy to lose faith in the College’s sexual assault adjudication policy when an organization receives threats from the person who is paid to respond to sexual assault complaints “in a manner that is equitable, effective, and eliminates the harassment through remedies designed for the individual and, as needed, the entire College community.” Therefore, it is unfortunately unsurprising that Hamilton is under a federal investigation for its alleged failings.