For Simon Fraser University to have allowed a suspected rapist to continue living in residence, going to classes and even attending campus pub nights after three young women reported him to police seems unconscionable and, possibly, even negligent.
In balancing the rights of its young, female students (both complainants and others in its residences) against those of the young man’s, the university chose protection of its own reputation, presumption of innocence and the young man’s privacy over the safety and peace of mind of its female students.
The kindest reading suggests paralysis in the face of not having a proper policy. One can’t help wonder why none of these very smart people didn’t just write a policy given all that’s been said and written about the so-called rape culture and the shockingly high rates of sexual violence against college-aged women.
Frankly, it would only have been unvarnished good luck if SFU hadn’t needed one until now.
But, indeed, SFU has had problems.
Why else would a group of staff, faculty and students have been pushing for so long to have a sexual assault centre on campus if there were no problems? The university rejected the idea of the centre at a meeting last fall. According to Derek Sahota of the Teaching Support Staff Union, the group was told that if the students wanted one, they should pay for it.
At worst, SFU’s lack of action suggests that its administrators simply thought if something happened, they could brazen it out; that no one would notice if they muzzled the complainants, their friends and families with dire warnings that talking about what happened could hinder the police investigation.
SFU’s academic vice-president John Driver repeated that refrain Monday night in a campus-wide email: “I recognize that this is frustrating. But in order to respect the privacy of those involved and because there is an RCMP investigation that’s still ongoing, we cannot provide further details.”
Among the details left unaddressed is whether the accused assailant suffered any consequences beyond being moved to a bigger and better dorm room. Also not clear now is whether he’s simply gone on vacation or transferred to another university where his reputation won’t precede him.
It doesn’t have to be like this. After a recent rewrite of its policy, the University of Alberta can immediately evict an alleged perpetrator from the residence “if there is an imminent concern for safety” and “based on the balance of probabilities.” It also has the power to impose interim measures (including no-contact orders and forced withdrawal without academic penalties) for the safety of the community and “the peace of mind of the complainant.”
What’s so painfully clear is that at SFU — and other B.C. post-secondary schools like UBC, the University of Victoria, Thompson Rivers and BCIT that have had similar problems — it’s female students who bear the burden.
When assailants aren’t dealt with, the assaulted often abandon their studies because they are traumatized, don’t feel safe or don’t have access to the services and support they need.
It’s the same in the United States.
But at least institutions and administrators there can pay a financial price for failing to appropriately respond.
The stick that activists have used at about 40 publicly funded institutions is Title IX. It’s a 44-year-old amendment to the Education Act that prohibits the federal government from funding institutions that discriminate based on sex. (Title IX is best known for having forced equal funding of men’s and women’s sports.)
There is no such stick here. Even in the province’s pending legislation, which will require B.C. post-secondary schools to have and enforce sexual misconduct policies that include both prevention and response procedures, there aren’t any penalties for non-compliance.
Beyond that, lawyer Angela Folino of the law firm EKB points out that the B.C. legislation also specifically grants immunity from liability to board members or anyone acting under their direction.
What’s astounding is that what’s being required of post-secondary schools will still fall short of what the courts require of Canadian employers when it comes to protecting their employees.
In 1987, the Supreme Court of Canada placed the responsibility on employers for gender discrimination, which includes sexual harassment and other sexual offences. It said that employers must have effective and functional policies, respond quickly and effectively and take all measures possible to prevent its recurrence. If they don’t, the organization and the individuals who run it are liable.
It’s absurd that SFU and other post-secondary institutions may have a greater duty of care to their employees than to their students.
It’s simply not good enough.
Related
