In response to feedback provided by several groups—including a strong response by the undergraduate body—the vice-president (students and enrolment) Suzanne Blanchard made several amendments to the Sexual Violence Policy Draft before it was presented and eventually passed by the Board of Governors. On Dec. 1, 2016 the Carleton Board of Governors passed the Carleton Sexual Violence Policy with protestors chanting “not our policy” outside Richcraft Hall. On a board with 31 sitting members, the only individuals who voted against passing the policy were three student representatives: Fahd Alhattab, Greg Owens, and Michael Büeckert.
Although the changes did improve the policy, they are not enough. They are not enough to ensure a just complaint process that respects the wishes of survivors. Nor are they enough to properly prevent instances of sexual violence from occurring on Carleton’s campus (or off-campus by members of the university community) in the future. Although it is important to celebrate the successful dialogue between Carleton’s administration and the student body, we must remain critical of the current Sexual Violence Policy.
Let me be clear—the current Sexual Violence Policy remains inherently flawed.
This policy continues to exclude visitors on campus and alumni from being held accountable for acts of sexual violence on our campus.
This is a policy that could require survivors to attend face-to-face committee hearings with their attackers.
This is a policy that provides no immunity from the Student Rights and Responsibility Policy’s drug and alcohol violations for survivors that report a sexual assault. Thus, a survivor reporting their sexual assault could be sanctioned under this policy for illegal drug or alcohol use at the time of the assault. In the United States, 15 per cent of schools have amnesty clauses protecting survivors from these sanctions.
Finally, and most concerning, this is a policy whereby a survivor does not have the right to be informed of the sanctions ordered against their attacker once found guilty of sexual assault. This is justified by arguing that the Ontario Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA) bars them from sharing any information concerning sanctions with survivors unless for health and safety reasons.
The Carleton administration dismissed many of these recommended changes during the consultation phase, due to claims of abstract provincial legal obligations preventing them from including clauses to address these issues. However, other University Sexual Violence Policies, including those across Ontario, undermine these claims.
Section 3.2. (g) of the University of Ottawa Sexual Violence Policy encompasses “visitors, including visiting students and volunteers or persons who serve on advisory or other committees”, as part of their definition of members of the “University Community.”
Furthermore, Section 7.6.2. (c) of the University of Ottawa Sexual Violence Policy explicitly outlines that the committee meeting will be arranged to ensure that the Complainant and Respondent do not meet face to face.
Finally, the claim by Carleton that they are legally prohibited from sharing with survivors the sanctions ordered against an individual found guilty of assaulting became questionable after examining other University Sexual Violence policies across Ontario. For example, both Queen’s University (Section 15.1) and York University (Section 11.4.11.) have clauses maintaining that they will inform the survivor of the punishment ordered by the committee.
If other Ontario universities are including provisions in their sexual violence policies without reference to abstract legal obligations, Carleton can include such clauses as well. In her response to feedback, Blanchard said the administration is still open to further consultation and dialogue regarding improvement of the policy, by continuing to consider any feedback sent to them. Once again, it is imperative that students have their concerns heard so that survivors and future students are not subject to this flawed policy until the next time Carleton is legally required to review it in 2019.
