Trochmann
1
Transcending Sexual Assault on College Campuses
Maren Trochmann, Georgetown University
December 1, 2008
Although sexual assault and rape are among the most prevalent crimes on college
campuses, they are rarely addressed in holistic and transformative ways. On the campus
of Georgetown University, recent efforts to prevent sexual assault exemplify a typical
conflict resolution approach for dealing with these issues. Police and campus security
focus their efforts on ending the direct violence by teaching women self defense. Other
activists on campus, including student groups such as Take Back the Night and campus
organizations such as Health Educational Services, go beyond dealing only with the
direct violence. The campus community feels and experiences the repercussions of
gender-motivated violence, yet the alarming rates of violence and victimization continue.
This ongoing conflict presents opportunity for creative change if the campus community
can unite to confront the underlying cultural practices and structures that normalize and
perpetuate sexual violence. In this paper I will explore how the current situation at
Georgetown can be used to demonstrate a more holistic and transformative response that
transcends not only the direct violence but the underlying contradictions of men’s and
women’s relations and interactions in colleges throughout the US. I will use Johan
Galtung’s framework of Conflict Transcendence to explore the present, past and future of
the conflict of sexual assault. This conflict itself is complex and multidimensional, and
underlying it are many other conflicts regarding the appropriate response and reactions in
campus culture.
Exploring the Present: Georgetown’s Department of Public Safety’s New Initiative
This September, The Hoya, Georgetown’s main student newspaper, announced a
Trochmann
2
new initiative of Georgetown University’s Department of Public Safety (DPS). The Hoya
describes the new program, known as Rape Aggression Defense Systems (RADS), as,
“The country’s largest women’s self-defense program [that] is taught at more than 1,400
U.S. colleges and universities.”1 The article also relates the logistics of the program,
saying, “[it] focuses on self-defense tactics and risk reduction [… and it] will be open for
all female students on campus.”2 This DPS initiative is in response to the increased
awareness of sexual assaults and gender motivated violence on and around GU’s campus
the previous spring. An intruder in a campus residence hall perpetrated the majority of
the six reported assaults that year and caused much concern about safety, especially for
women, in the Georgetown community. In order to assuage these fears and take a
proactive stance, the new director of DPS announced RADS early this fall.
The sexual violence of last spring directly affected those six female students who
reported the forcible assault to DPS.3 It indirectly caused other women on campus,
students, staff, and faculty, to fear for their safety, take extra precautions in their daily
lives, and feel vulnerable in the Georgetown campus and surrounding neighborhoods.
The perpetrator of these assaults was not a student or a member of the university
community as far as the authorities know; rather, he was an outsider, an anonymous man
who preys on random, unsuspecting women and girls. GU Department of Public Safety
has been assigned the role of responding to these reports, informing the campus
community, and creating a safe and secure environment.
This RADS initiative seeks to make women feel safe and empowered by teaching
1
O’Brien, Christopher. “DPS to Start Sexual Assault Defense Program.” Washington (DC), Georgetown
University: The Hoya. 4 September 2008.
2
Ibid.
3
“2008 Crime Awareness Report.” Georgetown University. Washington (DC). 2008.
Trochmann
3
them how to protect themselves if they find themselves unsuspectingly assaulted by a
stranger. The RADS program assumes that the only actors involved in the conflict are the
vast majority of women and the few anonymous, predatory men who wait to attack them.
The stakeholders in this conflict are more numerous than this approach assumes. One
obvious contingency that was not addressed is the LGBTQ community, which also faced
numerous hate crime assaults (also gender-based) the previous year. Moreover, while
sexual assaults do primarily target females, this program does not acknowledge that men
are also targeted. Most of the university staff and relevant campus offices were also
excluded from the programming. The faculty, staff, and administrators, who carry the
large onus of shaping relevant policy towards gender-motivated violence, were largely
not included in DPS’ planning phases and, in fact, were unaware of the program until the
public announcement was made and reiterated through The Hoya.4
The RADS program has thus far been planned and initiated only by a few white
male law enforcement officers in DPS. There has not been any visible effort to include
minorities or women within the Department of Public Safety or from other on-campus
departments. Student groups on campus that promote awareness of gender-motivated
violence and seek to prevent sexual assault, rape and domestic abuse were not consulted
in the development stages of RADS. These groups include Take Back the Night, GU Men
Creating Change, GU Pride and a Sexual Assault Working Group. Other departments on
campus that generally advocate for students’ wellbeing were not consulted either. The
excluded Georgetown offices and departments include: the Office of Student Affairs, the
Office of Residence Life, Health Education Services, the LGBTQ Center, the Center for
4
Personal Interview. Laura Kovach, Director of GU Women’s Center. 10 Nov 2008.
Trochmann
4
Multicultural Equity and Access and the Women’s Center.5
One major stakeholder has been left out of the programming- men. Conspicuously
absent in this conflict resolution approach, male students, staff, faculty and allies at
Georgetown are not included in this narrow initiative. Many activists, who fight to
prevent gendered violence, are not given credit for their hard work, and men are not
validated as necessary participants in the prevention, awareness and healing process.
Sexual assault affects not just the victim and the perpetrator but the entire community
through the atmosphere of fear, trauma, and distrust it creates. Therefore, men can and
should be an integral part of the transformation.
RADS does have redeeming qualities, and it should be one part of a more holistic
approach as it is essential to seek to remedy the direct violence of the conflict. This
approach alone is not transformative, as it does not address deep structural and cultural
issues that perpetuate sexual assault. Nevertheless, it is a necessary part of any conflict
transformation, which requires a comprehensive framework that includes Conflict
Resolution steps to stop the direct violence by empowering women to fight back and
protect themselves. There is a lively debate as to whether this approach does prevent
direct violence because it does not attempt to stop the men from perpetrating violence
against women.
In her book Beauty Bites Beast, Ellen Snortland argues, “Women must reclaim their
natural ability to be physically dangerous in order to achieve true freedom.”6 Snortland
believes that women and girls have the natural ability to protect themselves and fight
5
Ibid.
Snortland, Ellen. Beauty Bites Beast: Awakening the Warrior Within Women and Girls.
Pasadena, CA: Trilogy Books. 1998. p. xiv
6
Trochmann
5
back, but cultural norms and socialization have wrongly taught them that they must serve,
fear and seek the protection of men. Hence, given this premise, not only can defense
classes address the episodic violence, but they can cause a shift in cultural norms that
enables women to confidently view themselves as powerful, strong and capable. As a
caveat, she notes that these defense classes are often male-oriented, i.e. they teach proven
techniques for men, by men and do not take into account women’s strengths, intuitions or
physical differences.7 Snortland argues that by teaching self defense by women, for
women, social norms that inhibit women’s strength can be overcome.
If RADS worked within Snortland’s framework, it could reawaken women’s inner
strength and create equal gender dynamics on campus. Yet, because of the way DPS and
its new director announced and began formulating RADS, it seems to be yet another
male-imposed norm or expectation. The program seems to suggest that if only women
know certain self-defense techniques, they will be safe and not become a victim of sexual
assault. In doing so, RADS perpetuates a campus culture of victim blaming. It suggests
that women become victims because they do something wrong; it shifts the attention and
accusations from the perpetrator to the victim. Moreover, RADS suggests that women,
not men, need to change in order to stop the violence that is perpetrated against them.
Reliving the Past: The Ongoing Efforts to Stop Gender-Motivated Violence at GU
Statistics show that one of every four women will be a victim of sexual assault or
attempted sexual assault by the time she graduates from college.8 This definition of
sexual assault includes any non-consensual sexual acts and rape. Although men are also
7
Ibid.
Fisher BS, Cullen FT, Turner MG. “The Sexual Victimization of College Women.”
Washington (DC): Department of Justice (US), National Institute of Justice; 2000.
Publication No.: NCJ 182369. Good resource.
8
Trochmann
6
victims of sexual assault, ninety percent of the victims are female.9 Hence, it is necessary
to give credence to the gender-bias of this violent crime and the higher risk environment
in which women live daily. Women in college face an elevated risk, and this statistic is
commonly cited in university activities that seek to raise awareness of sexual assault.
Georgetown University is no exception, yet the total of six reported incidences of
sexual assault last year suggest otherwise. This is because sexual assault and rape are the
most underreported crimes in the U.S. The fact that the only reported assaults involve
unknown perpetrators is reflective of the social pressures that influence underreporting,
especially in acquaintance assaults. In reality, 73% of sexual assaults and rapes are
perpetrated by an acquaintance.10 Georgetown University’s community is only exposed
to these reported crimes, and so the conflict seems minimal. It appears to only involve a
few unfortunate girls and one or two dangerous men. Yet this is not truly representative
of the violence.
Activists on campus have sought to change this misperception. For more than a
decade, student groups like Take Back the Night have been on campus working to raise
awareness of the persistent cultural and structural violence that normalizes sexual assault.
Campus resources such as Health Educational Services (HES) and Counseling and
Psychatric Services (CAPS), as well as the Women’s Center, have been made available to
students who are affected by this issue. Georgetown University’s policy towards sexual
assault has evolved to allow the victim more recourse. Yet despite all of these actions,
rape and sexual assault is for the most part not discussed, reported or addressed by the
9
Ibid.
“The Offenders: The Rapist Isn’t a Masked Stranger.” Rape, Abuse and Incest National
Network. RAINN: 2008.
http://rain.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders
10
Trochmann
7
campus community, and the available student services are not highly publicized. These
resources also are reactive and are not preventing the violence from occurring but rather
assuming that it will.
Other post-conflict measures include GU’s security services and disciplinary board.
The strategies of DPS and the Office of Student Misconduct seem a small, reactive
remedy for a large and omnipresent conflict. Oftentimes, despite the good intentions of
these groups, services, and policies, there is not much change in campus culture. Indeed,
most of these strategies do not attempt to solve the deep, underlying issues that uphold
and invigorate a campus culture that permits sexual assault to go on unnoticed and
underreported. Instead, the policies provide recourse to the victim post-assault and put the
onus of reporting and prosecuting the perpetrator on the victim herself. Most of these
policies target women, the usual victims, and do not even mention the men on campus as
responsible parties and stakeholders.
While campus disciplinary policies follow the typical guidelines of the U.S. justice
system and other university norms, certain programs are available on campus that take a
proactive stance on sexual assault and emphasize the shared responsibility for prevention
and positive change.11 One such program is R U Ready?, an event put on by HES,
Residence Life, CAPS and the Women’s Center at the start of each school year. This
event consists of a speaker, usually a survivor or an ally of a survivor of sexual assault,
and a subsequent discussion facilitated by GU students who have undergone intense
11
United States. Department of Justice. FY 2008 Grants to Reduce Domestic Violence,
Dating Violence, Sexual Assault and Stalking on College Campuses: Program Brief.
January 2008. 20 October 2008.
<http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/campus_desc.htm>
Trochmann
8
training. The aim of this program is to open a dialogue among Georgetown students
about the causes and the possible solutions to the prevalence of sexual assault on campus.
The event emphasizes the one-in-four statistic and focuses on the untold stories of
survivors, both female and male, to raise greater awareness and foster allies and
advocates.
R U Ready? is not a mandatory program, so in most cases those who attend are
already informed and aware of the sexual assault problem on campus and have a desire to
do their part to prevent rape. Reaching the majority of students who do not recognize the
true causes and effects of widespread sexual assault is the greatest challenge. Take Back
the Night also attempts to reach out to these students, but often the majority female
students who become involved and attend events are those who are already aware of the
vast prevalence of sexual assault.
The university’s response is a typical conflict resolution approach, which focuses
on the immediate problem, the direct violence. It seeks a solution to this conflict without
looking for the underlying causes and forces that perpetuate the conflict. These policies
seek to reach a settlement between the perpetrator and the victim. They view this conflict
as a problem to be resolved by the two parties as quickly as possible rather than an
opportunity for creative change involving all stakeholders. This form of retributive justice
does not transcend the conflict.
Prognosis of the Future: Continuing on the Present Path
If sexual assault continues to be a conflict to be solved quickly and then brushed
aside, it will remain a looming threat at Georgetown and on college campuses around the
country. The fact that one in four college age women will be the victim of sexual assault
Trochmann
9
has always been and continues to be an alarming statistic, yet the status quo has and will
continue as is. This means that women and girls will continue to be victimized in large
numbers simply because of their gender, and nobody will take an effective stance to stop
these assaults before they occur. The focus on the direct violence accompanied by the
abysmal underreporting of these crimes mean that the conflict will continue to appear a
minimal problem involving mainly “stranger” rapes. Since 25% of college women falling
victim to sexual assault has not been an impetus to seriously attempt to create change,
since it has not been cause for concern, the conflict will continue to be ignored,
dismissed, and minimized.
How can this conflict attract the necessary political and popular will for change? As
the present situation suggests only with a highly publicized assault or series of assaults
will the campus community and administration become mobilized and united for change.
Yet the short institutional memory of university environments suggests that
administrators really do not have to take student concerns seriously. Because every four
years a new set of students cycle through the university, the memory of the residence hall
sexual assaults will quickly fade and the status quo of underreporting will return. The
administration and campus police know that they will not be held responsible over long
periods of time and the expressed discontent of current students will be forgotten in three
of four years.
Based on these prevailing conditions, those few men who are the perpetrators of
acquaintance rape, sexual assault, and sexist behavior, will continue to act as they do with
no apparent consequences. In fact, even in times of high alert, the focus is not on the men
of Georgetown University but rather on the women, who presumably could do more to
Trochmann 10
protect themselves. As long as the caricature of the rapist as the “man in the bushes”
continues to hold value, the true nature of the conflict will be deflected and obscured. The
legitimate needs of the rape victims: for their own wellbeing, security, and in some cases
for their survival, will remain unsatisfied until there is a genuine effort to prevent further
sexual assault and this effort includes majority of administrators, staff, and students- both
male and female.
Deep Diagnosis of the Past: A Culture of Misogyny and Structures that Allow It
In order to understand how instances of sexual assault have become and have
remained prevalent and widespread on college campuses, it is necessary to examine the
deep cultural and structural dimensions of the conflict, which normalize and perpetuate it.
Centuries of patriarchal norms and a man’s right and privilege of sexual prowess are not
easily reconfigured. In fact, rape was originally a property crime under the concept of
“coverture” that legally allowed men to have jurisdiction over his wife. Rape, therefore,
only legally happened when a man violated another man’s wife, and marital rape was not
recognizes as such.12 This recognition of rape was misguided and male-centric because it
considered a wife’s “adulterous sex- consensual or otherwise- as a harm done to her
husband.”13 The blame fell to the woman for harming her husband and her legitimate
needs were not considered.
While much has changed culturally since this definition of rape was deemed
acceptable, much has remained the same. When rape and sexual assault do occur,
oftentimes the media, the community and the legal process focus primarily on the
12
Block, Sharon. Rape and Sexual Power in Early America. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC
Press. 2006.
13
Ibid. pp 29-30.
Trochmann 11
woman, the victim. News reporters ask what women can do so this does not happen to
them. While women do have valid concerns about how to best stay safe, the implications
of such presentations can be harmful. By implying that a woman can do the “right” things
and not be victimized, the media suggest that the victim must have done something
wrong. This shifts the blame from the perpetrators violent behavior to the woman’s
unsafe, provocative, or risky actions.
In high profile cases against athletes or actors, the press often focuses on the
character of the woman accuser rather than examining the behaviors and attitude of the
man. Reporters and observers question the integrity of the alleged victim and assume that
she must want fame or money. This sexist characterization shifts the attention from the
perpetrator of the violence to the victim. Moreover, false and mishandled rape reports,
such as that of the infamous Duke Lacrosse case, perpetuate the image of a manipulative
or untrustworthy victim. It provides the accused perpetrator with excuses, alibis and
allies while leaving the victim psychologically destroyed with little guarantee of
prosecution.
The RADS program at Georgetown also, even if unintentionally, promotes this
victim-blaming mentality by suggesting that if only women do things “right,” they will
not be at risk for sexual assault. At Georgetown, DPS encourages women to be safe and
aware of their surroundings, but they do not urge men to challenge themselves to stop
sexist behavioral norms that may be threatening to or targeted at women as sexual
objects.
The court system and the university penal system are set up in a way to protect the
accused based on the strong American belief in innocence until proven guilty. This re-
Trochmann 12
victimization, the accusations and the doubt that the woman will face in the justice
system, certainly plays a role in the underreporting: 60% of rapes and sexual assaults are
never reported.14 Of the 40% of reported rapes and sexual assaults, there is only a 16%
chance that the rapist or assailant will end up in prison, this means that, including the
unreported assaults, 15 of every 16 rapists are never held accountable.15 This
demonstrated lack of serious prosecution sends a message from the judicial and penal
system that rape and sexual violence are not a serious concern.
Georgetown University’s response burdens the victim to contact DPS and follow
specific procedures to ensure that her assailant is prosecuted. She will be encouraged to
go to the hospital for an intrusive and painful “rape kit” or sexual assault examination to
collect evidence. She will be asked whether she wants to contact DC Metro Police. She
will be responsible for requesting to move dorms or apartments with the Director of
Residence Life or other administrative officials, but this change will only be granted
based on availability.
She also has to decide whether to report the incident to the Director of Student
Conduct to pursue disciplinary measures against a student assailant. If the accused is
found guilty of a category “C” offense, the most severe category that includes forcible
and coercive sexual penetration, the assailant “could, but may not necessarily, be
dismissed from the University.”16 Hence, even in the most severe cases, the victim is not
guaranteed sufficient recourse. She may have to continue to attend a University that has
“Reporting Rates.” Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network. RAINN: 2008.
http://rain.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders
15
Ibid.
14
16
“2008 Crime Awareness Report.” Georgetown University. Washington (DC). 2008.
Trochmann 13
recognized her experience as legitimate yet still allows her assailant or rapist to continue
attending GU and living, learning and working in her environment. This leniency often
makes the victim unwilling to come forward. Having accused a fellow student, she may
have to face him daily for the rest of her college career even if the University recognizes
him as a rapist.
Some sexual assaults are not as physically violent as rape, but are harmful and
intimidating nevertheless. Many of these assaults, most of which are unreported, do
involve GU students. A recent article in another Georgetown newspaper, The Voice,
describes one sophomore’s encounter with three Georgetown men on Halloween night:
“She was walking home from a Halloween party by herself, when… a male
Georgetown student jumped out in front of her and began yelling obscenities.
She remembers him calling her a “hot piece of shit.” He reached behind her,
grabbed her behind, and then began tugging at the sides of her jeans as if to
pull them down. Finally, two other male students who were walking in the
middle of the street- apparently the aggressor’s friends- came over to pull him
away, telling the girl, ‘don’t pay attention to him, he’s really drunk.’”17
This brief confrontation, which the girl decided not to report to the police or campus
security is a poignant example of GU’s campus culture in which men not only allow their
friends to target girls but also make excuses for them to do so. The victim said the
ambush by the male student, whom she did not know, startled her and made her feel
unsafe and vulnerable. Later, however, she blamed herself for walking alone at night and
dressing provocatively, and she told the reporter that it was not a big deal.18 Not only did
the male students minimize the victim’s feelings of vulnerability, telling her to ignore a
man who was tugging on her jeans, yelling at her and touching her inappropriately, but
Mays, Kate. “Silence and its Dangers.” in The Voice. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University. 6 Nov. 2008.
18
Ibid.
17
Trochmann 14
the victim herself also shared this attitude that minimized the situation and accepted it as
normal.
Victim-blaming and the self-blame of the victim herself are due in a large part to
fear. Accepting that the victim of a sexual assault is not the responsible party but rather
an innocent woman going about her daily life is to accept that an assault could happen to
anyone anytime. Coming to terms with this vulnerability causes a frightening shift in
worldview. In America, the premise that a person has complete control over his or her
own destiny is an important and resonating value. To deny that this control exists is a
complete contradiction to this belief and a frightening admission of vulnerability. To
accept that even if a woman does everything “right” she could still be victimized by a
random man on the street or, more frequently, by a close friend or acquaintance is simply
not comprehensible to most people. Also, to accept that everyone has the potential to be a
victimizer is a frightening reality for many men and women. Therefore victim blaming is
not usually a malevolent response; rather, those who blame the victims of sexual assault
are mostly just afraid of what accepting their stories will mean for themselves and the
way they view their lives and relationships.19
This is not to say that most men will sexually assault a woman, only a small
minority will. Most men value and respect the women in their lives; they would never
physically harm them, and they do worry about their safety. However, many men and
women are implicit in the promotion of a campus culture that values the masculine norms
of violence, physical strength and sexual prowess and the feminine submissiveness,
passivity and weakness.
19
Luettel Schweer, Jen. Sexual Assault and Health Issues Coordinator. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University, Health Education Services. September 2008.
Trochmann 15
Nevertheless, many women and men, students and scholars, deny that these cultural
norms truly exist or play a role in the problem of sexual assault. They often replaced this
cultural explanation with a biological or genetic argument. Common excuses that
students often iterate include the “point of no return,” a time at which a man must
physically have a sexual release. This excuses rape after consensual foreplay or touching
based on a biological falsehood. This logic holds no weight when compared to other
similar situations. This excuse implies that a woman will lose her right to say no, her
right to her own body, if she engages consensually in sexual activity up to a certain point.
This sentiment is reflective of the earlier discussion of coverture, that historically a
woman lost the right to her own body when she married. The difference is that she loses
this right at a different point determined by her sexual actions, and it is justified by a false
biological claim about men’s sexual needs instead of by an argument about his legal
rights.
Another argument that protects and dismisses any misogynistic or aggressive
behavior towards women implies that these actions simply reflect men’s natural
disposition, the “boys will be boys” excuse. This attitude is profoundly insulting to men.
As Jackson Katz, a prominent spokesman for the necessity of men’s involvement to end
sexual violence, notes, “[this assumption] carries the profoundly anti-male assumption
that we should expect bad behavior from boys and men. The assumption is that they are
somehow not capable of acting appropriately or treating girls and women with respect.”20
This argument not only legitimizes men’s sexual violence and other misogynistic
behavior, it also insinuates that men are literally incapable of controlling themselves and
20
Katz, Jackson. The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How all Men
can Help. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, Inc. 2006. p 86.
Trochmann 16
their actions.
Nevertheless, this biological and genetic argument that defends men’s violence, is
used to discredit the theory that a deeply rooted culture of sexual inequality, which makes
men the powerful and women the powerless, is to blame. Katz iterates:
One of the greatest insights of the battered women’s movement is that most
abuse in heterosexual relationships is due not to a man’s inherent biological
makeup, but to his learned need for power and control. The typical scenario is
not that he loses control and then strikes her, but rather that he uses force, or
the threat of force, to establish or maintain control in the relationship…. He
believes that he should be in control… Not surprisingly men who [abuse]
women tend to subscribe to hyper-traditional patriarchal gender ideologies.21
Therefore, the cultural and social conditioning of men that puts an emphasis on
patriarchy, men’s control over women, still has a preeminent position in the minds of the
men who do abuse and assault women. These abuses are an expression of power and
control, not a natural male tendency. Oftentimes, even when men do not consciously hold
such patriarchal and sexist views, they still use those arguments to justify or defend the
behavior of their friends as in the aforementioned situation. To say that their friend is
“just drunk” implicitly accepts his behavior as a natural male tendency rather than an
unacceptable sexist behavior.
Institutional behaviors in Universities also reflect and promote this sexist cultural
norm of masculine power. The controversy over Title IX, a legal requirement in the U.S.
that women’s athletic opportunities match those of men, is grounded in the fact that many
people, including 50% of all sports journalists believe that Title IX hurts men’s sports. 22
Not only do many people view this requirement as taking limited resources from
21
Ibid. p 87.
Rosenfeld, Diane L. “Changing Social Norms? Title IX and Legal Activism.” in
Harvard Journal of Law and Gender. President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Summer, 2008. LexisNexis Academic. Reed Elsevier, Inc. 20 October 2008.
22
Trochmann 17
traditional male-dominated sports, such as football, but, as Diane Rosenfeld, a professor
at Harvard University, notes, “Stakes are high because organized sports offer men a
means for demonstrating masculinity and displaying physical power… Men playing with
women upset the social order.”23 This represents the cultural view that women should be
physically weaker than men and that men should rightfully dominate in the physical
arena. While most universities are nonetheless forced into compliance with Title IX, the
uproar surrounding it still is evidence of a deeply rooted cultural belief in the masculine
values of power and physicality.
Women’s physical empowerment has been socially curtailed as an unacceptable
cultural deviation. Snortland states that in no other species in nature has females’ natural
ability to protect themselves been reduced or diminished. Nevertheless, men’s physical
dominance has been normalized, socialized and become culturally acceptable and “right”
in the current cultural debates. This point is clearly demonstrated by the reaction to Title
IX that claims it “upsets the social order.” Hence, the still prevalent patriarchal beliefs not
only serve to grant controlling, domineering male behaviors prestige and value, but they
also impede women’s physical empowerment.
These cultural and structural dimensions that uphold the culture of violence, as well
as the biological excuses for male behavior, are complicated by racism and homophobia.
Racism has long been a driving force of sexual power. Although the privileges of the
white male are no longer as pronounced, other nuanced perils face minority women in
college and throughout their lives. Not only do they face the patriarchal attitudes that
white women face, but they also must deal with racist stereotypes that create a double
23
Ibid.
Trochmann 18
barrier to their empowerment. Kathryn Strother Ratcliffe, author of Women and Health:
Power, Technology, Inequality and Conflict in a Gendered World, describes how
“whatever difficulties white, middle-class women had in being taken seriously [about
their sexual assault or rape], the same problems are geometrically compounded for
minority and lesbian women.”24 These women fear that those in power will not find them
credible victims in the first place and, if they do, their entire racial or lesbian community
could face further marginalization and reaffirmation of negative stereotypes. For instance,
black male perpetrators are far more likely to face harsh treatment in the criminal justice
system as demonstrated by historical precedent.25 For these reasons, minority and lesbian
women face all of the same obstacles in coming forward that white women face, and
these difficulties are compounded by complex issues of racial and homophobic
marginalization and negative stereotyping.
Deep Therapy for the Future: Transcending Cultural and Structural Obstacles
The first step in transforming the complex issue of sexual assault on campus is
recognizing the severity and gravity of the situation. Until there is the will to engage in an
ongoing dialogue from the student body, men and women, as well as administrators, no
positive action will be made. Steps have already been made to publicize the true
statistics; it is now more widely known and accepted that one in four women will be
victims of sexual assault by the end of college. The underreporting of these crimes is
rooted in long-held cultural and structural norms that are not likely to transform quickly.
Nevertheless, an effort must be made to encourage women to come forward through
24
Strother Ratcliffe, Kathryn. Women and Health: Power, Technology, Inequality and
Conflict in a Gendered World. Boston: University of Connecticut. 2002. p 69.
25
Ibid.
Trochmann 19
facilitating the process by creating trust between police, DPS, the administration and
students. The great number of acquaintance sexual assaults and rapes deserve just as
much publicity, outrage and preventative action as the “man in the bushes” assault by a
stranger. Until Georgetown University confronts this obstacle by acknowledging the high
rates of sexual assault, encouraging victims to come forward and making clear and
unambiguous consequences for the perpetrators, the underreporting will continue and
students, faculty and staff will be allowed to continue dismissing, minimizing, and
ignoring the conflict. Providing another independent avenue for reporting, one that allows
anonymity and does not necessarily lead to prosecution, could present a more realistic
picture of GU’s current situation and create greater awareness and impetus for change.
Victim blaming can no longer be an acceptable reaction. The majority of the
victims, who come forward despite all the obstacles working against them, deserve to be
believed and respected. It is not acceptable to make a character assassination of these
brave women and men. It is difficult to overcome the fear of accepting that one in four
college women will become victims of sexual assault, and it will alter closely-held beliefs
and worldviews, but it is necessary. This is a step that all stakeholders, the media, the
administration, the police and DPS, male and female students, can challenge themselves
to take. The response of DPS, the Office of Student Conduct, and the Office of Residence
Life needs to stop sending a message of leniency and facilitate the victim’s healing,
recovery and justice processes. This justice should not be only retributive, but should
attempt to restore broken relationships and trust as well. While it will be difficult, it is
undeniably necessary in encouraging more victims to come forward, which they will be
able to do knowing they have a strong network of allies.
Trochmann 20
As process plays out and evolves, it is important that men and women take
responsibility for their own actions, attitudes, and assumptions as stakeholders in the
conflict. Men have an obligation to challenge their own beliefs about gender and women.
They can use and reshape the masculine norms of power and control for good by
challenging themselves and influencing their friends to hold themselves to a higher
standard. One man telling his friend that it is not okay to heckle and touch a female
student, who is walking home alone at night, would have changed that entire encounter
for that girl and could influence the assailant’s behavior in the future. When pulling on an
anonymous girl’s jeans and touching her butt is accepted as normal, if drunk, male
behavior, this entitlement and tacit permission sends a signal that disrespect and sexism is
accepted and normal. Beginning with these slight changes in everyday interactions, a
culture of sexism will begin to be deconstructed. Women can begin to recognize that they
do not need the protection or goodwill of men, that they have the ability and the strength
to defend themselves. Both men and women have the voice and the intelligence to speak
out about this issue. Mandating a program like RU Ready? could open this dialogue and
create a sense of shared responsibility on campus among all stakeholders.
Authority figures and students need to stop making excuses for bad behavior. Men
are not biologically prone to behave aggressively and disrespectfully towards women.
Until this myth is dispelled, the few men who do perpetrate gender-motivated violence,
and the many who are complicit in it, will continue to be excused and dismissed as “boys
being boys.” Men can and should hold themselves to a high standard, and to suggest
otherwise is an affront to their abilities and morals.
Prescription for the Present: What Georgetown University Can Do Now
Trochmann 21
While the changes mentioned above may take time to come to fruition, certain
actions can be taken immediately to ensure that a constructive change process is set in
motion. In the short term, the current DPS RADS initiative can evolve into a more
holistic program that is sensitive to men and women survivors. DPS can do this by
working with other organizations on campus, such as Health Education Services and the
Women’s Center, and obtaining student input from groups like Take Back the Night and
GU Men Creating Change. If the program continues to be rolled out in a way that
exclusively targets women, there should be an equivalent for men and it should be noted
clearly and unequivocally that women survivors are not responsible for their assaults.
In the medium term, it is important to overcome the barrier of short institutional
memory. It is vital that the administration, campus security and the campus community
continue to work towards transcendence, and this transformation should not be contingent
upon more attacks or direct violence. Student groups and programs, such as R U Ready?,
that partner informed campus activists with the student body already strive to achieve
such awareness and accountability.
While the alarming rate of sexual assault is not a pleasant, it is a conflict that, if dealt
with honestly and creatively, could transform college culture on many levels.
Relationships, between men and women, among and between races, classes and sexual
orientations, can be positively changed on many levels if the true cultural and structural
undertones that allow and permit sexual assault are transformed. As Galtung notes,
transcendence is not a compromise but rather a creative response that integrates and
recognizes the legitimate needs of all parties. A Conflict Transformation approach is
Trochmann 22
necessary because the issue of sexual assault, as multifaceted and complex as it is, will
never be overcome by focusing only on the prevention of the direct violence.