7 Comments
Dean Kromm’s controversial comments inspired No Red Tape–to petition against her.
In a recent Spectator article, Columbia’s Dean of Undergraduate Student Life, Cristen Kromm, was quoted saying that students found guilty of committing sexual assault will still be eligible to apply for leadership positions in NSOP and ISOP. Dean Kromm’s comments present sexual assault and gender-based violence as “mistake[s]” and opportunities for “learning, growth, and change.”
No Red Tape quickly created an online petition demanding that Dean Kromm issue a public apology for her comments as well as a statement of support for the group’s “SAAFE” protest demands. The petition garnered 100 signatures in under a day and is still gathering supporters. Dean Kromm says the committees that select Orientation Leader and RAs will continue to evaluate each application on a case-by-case basis, not necessarily excluding students with sexual violence on their records.
Dean Kromm via Columbia’s Website
Loading …
7 Comments
@Anonymous Because she realizes how ridiculous most gender based misconduct is and how easy it is to accuse someone.
@Anonymous Since basically any comment can be constuded as “gender based misconduct, “that is why this rule is appropriately put in place. Most of nrt calls males all kinds of names and insisted rapes and make false accusations of misogyny and rapes. None of them would be able to participate by their own rules.
@Think for once, NRT Kromm’s comments are not ridiculous. She is not at all saying that gender-based misconduct isn’t taken into account. What she’s saying is tru: There is a big fucking difference among types of misconduct and when they did it. For instance there is a big difference between rape and gender-based comments, but both qualify as misconduct. Should the freshman who in September suggested women work in kitchens be AUTOMATICALLY barred from being an NSOP leader three years later? That part of his record from freshman year is obviously something to be taken into account, but he shouldn’t be automatically barred from being an OL. Stop pretending like all gender-based misconduct is the same, and stop pretending like Kromm is letting in rapists. It’s just not true. Pay attention to what the fuck she’s saying.
@where did you get these ideas? in what universe would a ‘freshman who in September suggested women work in kitchens’ have been found responsible for gender based misconduct??? Do you have ANY idea what the policy applies to? I googled it:
Sexual Assault: Intercourse
Sexual Assault: Contact
Domestic Violence
Dating Violence
Sexual Exploitation
Stalking
Sexual Harassment
Gender-Based Harassment
Retaliation
The example you use would not come under any of the above. Then again, when CU insists on using weird euphemisms, it’s no wonder this happens.
@Anon It would fall under gender based harassment idiot. And point still stands, there’s a wide range
@Again, google it ‘Acts of aggression, intimidation, stalking, or hostility based on gender or gender stereotyping constitute gender-based harassment. Gender-based harassment can occur if students are harassed either for exhibiting what is perceived as a stereotypical characteristic of their sex or for failing to conform to stereotypical notions of masculinity or femininity. To constitute harassment, the conduct must unreasonably interfere with another person’s education or participation in educational programs or activities or create an intimidating, hostile, demeaning, or offensive academic or living environment.’
I really don’t think your example would stand.
@anonymous kromm’s comments are so ridiculous. maybe i would believe the admin’s talk about wanting to rehabilitate perpetrators and reintegrate them if they actually had any sort of comprehensive consent education or resources for survivors. until then, this sort of comment is affording the perpetrator more humanity and concern than their victim.