Carleton administration has released a revised sexual violence policy (SVP) draft on Jan. 30. Revisions to the policy follow months of consultation with the Carleton community.
The school was scheduled to review the current sexual violence policy this year after its implementation in 2016.
Here’s a breakdown from the Charlatan about some of the major changes to the policy in the new draft, and how this may affect survivors of sexual violence.
Immunity
According to a report on the SVP’s review feedback, a suggestion was to include an immunity clause that ensures students who have committed minor infractions related to drug or alcohol are protected when reporting sexual violence.
The university responded to the concern in the policy draft by saying that survivors of sexual violence who come forward will not be penalized for violations of university policies related to drug or alcohol use at the time the sexual violence took place.
“The University recognizes that some individuals may be hesitant to disclose or report sexual violence in cases where they have been drinking under age or were using drugs at the time the sexual violence took place,” the new draft says.
According to Bailey Reid, advisor with Equity Services, the purpose of adding the immunity clause to the policy is to make it easier for survivors to report sexual violence.
“If someone was drinking underage or if someone was smoking marijuana, we want to make sure they still feel safe to report those experiences of violence,” she said.
The Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) is a part of the taskforce involved in the development of the revised SVP. According to CUSA president David Oladejo, when it comes to sexual violence, survivor safety is more important than “what may have happened beforehand.”
The policy, however, does not define what minor or major infractions are, and neither does it grant immunity outside of cases of sexual violence that occurred during under-age alcohol consumption.
Oladejo said a clear definition of immunity needs to be included in the policy.
“There needs to be a clear-cut definition of what immunity entails because you don’t want a scenario where there are different interpretations of what the policy is saying,” he said.
Confidentiality
While the university policy says it is survivor-centric, the new policy will not make changes to its confidentiality clause.
A confidentiality clause prevents complainants from naming their perpetrators when speaking out about their experience with sexual violence, and knowing the consequences or measures given to the respondent.
According to the policy, the purpose of confidentiality is to prevent complainants from being exposed to possible cases of defamation, and to create a policy that does not violate the rights of any parties such as the Freedom of Information and Projection of Privacy Act.
“While we recognize that some survivors may wish to speak out about their experience as part of a therapeutic process, an important aspect of procedural fairness and an impartial formal investigation is confidentiality during the process,” the draft policy said.
Reid said the purpose of the clause is to ensure a “fair, impartial process.”
Oladejo said confidentiality is a sensitive topic that needs to be further discussed.
“Based on the feedback given from students in different organizations, there has to be deeper insight into how confidentiality is dealt with,” he said, because I do believe it’s important to have in there, but also the main focus needs to be on who the survivor is as opposed to who the perpetrator is.”
Oladejo also said the confidentiality will not be maintained if the perpetrator has been accused more than once.
According to undergraduate Board of Governors (BoG) representative Taylor Arnt, the confidentiality clause “goes both ways.”
“Sometimes, survivors feel ownership to protect others from ending up in the same situation,” she said. “But, the same time, it is important for procedural fairness.”
“I don’t think it’s the right of either the survivor or the perpetrator to publicize the situation, unless the survivor feels that it is part of their healing,” she added. “But confidentiality needs to be maintained on both sides as a sign of respect.”
Intersectionality
A major concern for the SVP draft is the lack of information about intersectionality. While the policy mentions intersectionality, there is no information on the steps that will be taken to make both the policy and the campus more intersectional when addressing sexual violence.
According to Reid, intersectionality is “a goal and not necessarily a finish line.”
“I think the university needs to be committed to intersectionality in a number of different ways, not just through the sexual violence policy,” she said.
“At the beginning of the policy, there is a statement that commits to supporting survivors, and I think the spirit of that is that any survivor who comes forward will receive support.”
Oladejo said intersectionality is being tackled through design-thinking workshops that receive feedback from specific campus groups such as CUSA’s Womxn’s Centre and the Gender and Sexuality Resource Centre (GSRC).
“Those are spaces where people who identify on different levels of intersectionality can go, engage with our coordinators, and find their community,” he said.
“It would definitely bring a different lens to what we’re putting into our policy.”
Online harassment
The new SVP will remain the same as before when it comes to online harassment.
“This Policy applies to all members of the University community (as defined below), whether they are in the University’s learning, living or work environment, on or off campus, or interacting through social or other electronic media,” the policy draft said.
But, there is no information on what constitutes online harassment and what the procedures to address it will be.
Reid said it’s important to understand that defining what constitutes online harassment might make it exclusive.
“We haven’t defined what a sexualized comment is because that’s not for us to define—that’s for the person who has experienced the harassment or who has experienced the unwanted touch or message to define for themselves,” she said.
According to Arnt, defining online harassment would prevent a lot of cases from being addressed.
“I think sexual harassment online can look like a lot of different things, and I don’t think it’s within the scope of the university to define those,” she said. “But, I do understand it can be frustrating—somebody not knowing if they’ve actually experienced sexual harassment.”
The policy draft also includes additional information on faculty-student relationships which has been taken from the university’s Human Rights Policies and Procedures.
According to the policy, faculty-student relationships are not banned, but strongly discouraged, and that any relationships with a power imbalance must be disclosed in a timely manner.
With the revised draft of the SVP public on Carleton’s website, the finalized policy will be out in April 2019.
Graphics by Paloma Callo
