23 Comments
Bwog Editor in Chief Taylor Grasdalen discusses the recent news.
On Wednesday, February 11, Columbia undergraduates received emails from their schools’ deans alerting them to a new sexual respect program. The “University Initiative on Sexual Respect and Community Citizenship,” as Deans Valentini and Boyce refer to it — or Dean Awn’s gentler “Sexual Respect: Engaging the Columbia Community” — requires that all Columbia College, School of Engineering and Applied Science, and General Studies students participate in some way. Barnard College has not mandated its students’ participation.
Dean Awn writes that “since your participation is required — and given the wide range of backgrounds, knowledge and experiences that students bring to these issues — we will propose multiple options for engagement so that all students can choose to participate in the way that works best for them between now and mid-March.” The deadline to complete the program, based in CourseWorks, is March 13. Students new to Columbia this semester already met the requirement during their orientation.
What Awn’s message demonstrates, and Valentini and Boyce’s reiterate (“undergraduates have a range of learning styles, backgrounds and experiences, and preferred ways of engaging, there are numerous options available for you to fulfill this requirement, ranging from workshops to film and talk-back discussions to individual or group art projects”) is that there is no exemption from this program for Columbia University undergraduates — unless one were a Barnard student, of course. Survivors, while presented with a fairly diverse set of options to complete the program, are regardless forced to confront the “sexual respect” material.
One student emailed Bwog, questioning the policy: “Why isn’t there an option to allow a CPS or outside counselor to exempt you? Do they seriously think that someone going to weekly counselling after an assault might not feel comfortable in a room full of people talking about triggering shit? Survivors for sure should be part of the conversation — but not without the option not to be.”
The program seems rushed, on an early deadline. Perhaps due to pressure from a semester’s worth of protests and more than a year’s worth of media attention, Columbia University has chosen to require its students to fulfill immediately a large “initiative.” Seniors must complete the project before graduation, and rising juniors and sophomores must as well find the time before March 13. This places a great weight on students nearing midterms and in the thick of job applications, when it might better have been addressed during the New Student Orientation Program, or through some, any, timelier process.
Survivors — especially those who have chosen not to share their history with their peers — are now subjected to a program from which they cannot necessarily be easily or quietly exempted. There are no statements in the program which outline an exemption process for students triggered by issues of sexual assault and gender-based misconduct, but rather, there are “alternatives.” There are film- and art- and storytelling-related options, but none that allow their rightful exclusion. There are “tell your story,” “post-trauma,” and “mindfulness” workshops.
Although this program represents an excellent step toward “ongoing efforts to prevent gender-based misconduct, strengthen the response to such misconduct when it occurs, and enhance our campus climate,” Columbia’s implementation and rules do not seem to naturally enhance the campus climate. While survivors — those reported and those quiet — are still exposed to material so outright triggering, the issue has not yet fairly been addressed.
Images of the program on CourseWorks may be viewed here.
Loading …
23 Comments
@Anonymous very othering to asexuals.
@Anonymous this will feature a how-to seminar:
“What To Do If He Doesn’t Text You Back,” Tuesday 7:30-8:30, Adams Hall.
@Anonymous *creates knee-jerk program in response to something completely fabricated*
*thinks this is ok because there is still a “conversation to be had.”*
@Anonymous Jesus, you can do the most insane, damaging, directly harmful shit to marginalized people as long as it sounds like social justice.
Columbia’s going to make this training mandatory, right? Which means somewhere in some system there’s going to be a database entry linked to everyone’s UNI that they’ve either done it or they haven’t. OK. They have to do something.
But some people shouldn’t be forced to do it because it’s triggering. With you there, I agree. So then Columbia adds a column to that database as to whether someone’s got an exception… And the implementation doesn’t matter – if it’s paper, they’re still keeping track.
Congratulations, you’ve demanded that Columbia begin systematically tracking in an identifiable way which students are rape survivors.
@CC '10, GSAS ~'17 GSAS students have to do this as well.
@Anonymous If you are a senior and you do this, I have no respect for you. You are not a leader. On principle, this program is disgusting and probably illegal.
Modifying graduation requirements with 2 months to go must be some breach of contract. The entire program was constructed hastily and in bad faith. The requirement change signifies gross misconduct. And, unilaterally not allowing exceptions – even for those involved with Sagan – is a personal attack.
@Anonymous SSGBM*
@alum That’s one hell of an auto-correct
@Anonymous That’s not what personal means. Or attack really.
@hmmm By the way, I would venture to bet that you can thank Obama and Biden for this. Not for the silly Courseworks thing, but for pressure on the university to address a nonexistent rape pandemic. A similar panic first developed on military campuses several years ago.
@Anonymous Barnard students are not Columbia University undergrads.
@hmmm Actually, to my knowledge they definitely are. Personally I find it a little ironic that this is not a Title IX violation– to have a branch of a university admit only students of a particular gender, and not have any comparable branch for the other gender, not to mention the disparity in selectivity. If Barnard admitted only men, like Columbia College once did, this would of course be a Title IX violation– but there is a specific carve-out in the law for women’s colleges. Personally I have a problem with the concept of a college for women, though I do take issue with the thoughtless zeal with which the law is repeatedly used to limit opportunities for men.
@hmmm Sorry, I meant to say that I personally do **NOT** have a problem with a college for women. Although I do think it potentially reinforces some gender stereotypes.
@David Marne I invite you to the University wide graduation ceremony
@u rite Separate president. Separate board of trustees. Separate school.
For the record of the schools typically included under the Columbia bubble, both TC and Barnard are distinct institutions “in affiliation with Columbia University.”
@Anonymous There is conflicting info on this in emails officials send out but nowhere on the Columbia site does it give an explanation about Barnard officially.
@in conclusion aka not part of Columbia officially, imo.
@alumnus to the people critical of administrative responses like these: what actions should the administration take?
@hmmm I don’t find the administration’s response to be so objectionable. But I would say the most justified response would be, if there are indeed problems with sexual assault prosecution, to address those problems. And if there are not, then to aggressively defend the university against any claims to the contrary. Besides prestige, Columbia and its peer institutions do command a level of influence in government. If some of the idiotic bureaucrats in DC would listen to any institution it would be one like this.
@Anonuymous - CU Survivor If this programme seems rushed, could it be because there is the Tile IX investigation underway and other similar legal challenges in the pipeline?
From my experience, when a large corporation or VIP is in the kind of trouble Bollinger Administration has been dropping Columbia University into since at least November 2004, this is what you do, i.e., you show that you are self-aware, self-policing, already taking the necessary steps to correct.
@I'm not a robot Interesting observation! Demonstrating compliance with various legal regimes and evidencing an intention to overhaul compliance programs tend to be effective in corporate settings where the corporate target is cooperating with the government. Cooperation entails giving up individuals within the corporation that allegedly contributed to the culture of disregard for regulatory requirements. These remarks reflect the current setting for corporate interactions with the SEC and DOJ regarding substantive offenses like wire fraud, mail fraud, OFAC violations, antitrust violations, FCPA violations, and similar statutory violations. Title IX investigations do not tend to consider such steps (i.e. compliance, cooperation, rehabilitation, etc.). So I think your observation is generally true, but in this case it is probably wrong (Title IX will be established based on past conduct and future behavior will not be interpreted as mitigating any harms).
@eee Can we just take a moment to laugh at the administrations stupidity? They want a 30 second to 5 min video for the Art part of the the sexual assault mandatory stuff, but it can not be more than 1 MB in size, DAFAQ? Any real video is gonna be way over 1MB in size… There should be mandatory basic technology education on campus if this shit is happening. HOLY FUCKEN SHIT BALLZ
@Anonymous can we take a moment to laugh at the author of this post’s stupidity? I bet she goes to Barnard. It’s funny how now that she got everything that she wanted after terrorizing the campus and bullying Paul, she still wants to find a loophole so she doesn’t have to bother herself with the “sexual respect.” The irony is that she probably needs it most. The best part of this whole thing is that even still, no one gives two shits about her attention-craving existence.