Sexual assault prevention backlash is unfounded

Nothing speaks more toward the desperation of the right wing to slow the progress of sexual assault reform than a complaint against sexual assault prevention training. But when the University was forced to issue an apology to students in response to a complaint that the training “was just full of super personal questions,” it was a troubling indication of pushback against sexual assault prevention education at a time when it is especially crucial, given the pervasiveness and gravity of sexual assault on college campuses — including ours.

So when online publications were littered with headlines like the Daily Caller’s “USC Forces Students to Disclose Sexual History to Sign Up for Classes,” such complaints alluded to a misperception that the University’s anonymous survey requesting information on undergraduate sexual behavior — including questions on frequency and safety measures taken — is proof of a liberal plot to engage in Big Brother style personal surveillance.

It is true that the survey mentioned in the complaint was explicitly voluntary. It is true that the questions were non-explicit in nature and sought to gain statistical information to improve student sexual safety. It is true that the complaint came months after the module was assigned and completed. Yet, news stations and tabloids like Campus Reform, Fox News and the Daily Wire have sought to profit off of the creation of scandal by taking the miniscule amount of information and sad explanation offered in order to smear USC’s attempt, and the attempts of multiple other public and private universities,  to curb sexual predation on its campus.

The single student complaint claimed that the module, administered by Campus Clarity, included prying sexual questions and a scenario in which a male was unfairly blamed for sexual assault. However, such a claim strongly distorts the purpose behind each of these stages of the module — and this misrepresentation was perpetuated by tabloids that published the student complaint.

The survey questions the complaint refers to are designed to gather broad information on the sexual activities of undergraduate students in order to improve sexual assault prevention and sexual safety training. Through an understanding of the most pervasive habits of college students, the module publisher as well as participating universities can most effectively target time and funding. Despite the necessity of this data, the module accounts for some students’ unwillingness or discomfort with sharing such information — and thus explicitly states that each and every question is wholly optional, in addition to placing the questions at the end of the training — after the student has received a notification that they have received credit for completion of the module.

The scenario cited by the student portrayed a female student who attended a party and became blackout drunk. A male student, depicted as having consumed two or three alcoholic beverages, approached the young woman and propositioned her. She began to lose consciousness as the two engaged in sexual behavior. He did not cease his advances despite his awareness of her state. The following morning, the male student talks to a friend about the encounter, and his friend cautions him that the situation may have constituted sexual assault. In no way does the situation suggest that both parties are equally inebriated, nor does the module suggest that the male partner is always responsible for a sexual situation involving alcohol. Conversely, the situation is meant to portray an archetype of a male student taking advantage of a female student’s alcohol consumption.

Not only are the complaints against the University’s sexual assault prevention course completely unfounded, they also underscore a seemingly inevitable — but also dangerous — backlash against assault prevention education. Just as some have started to shift their attention away from the plight of victims in legal sexual assault battles on college campuses and to the “rights of the accused,” the University’s apology in response to complaints is troubling. And to sexual assault resource advocates who have fought for years to institute assault prevention education, it’s tragic to see opposition form so quickly and over a matter so insignificant when compared to the overall importance of preventing college students from getting raped.

It’s assault victims, instead of the students perturbed by an optional questionnaire, that demonstrate why now — more than ever — sexual assault training must be wholeheartedly supported. And yes, there is a tinge of discomfort that comes with taking the mental effort to think about what consent means. But it is a small part of a much larger, much more necessary conversation — to dismantle the conceptions that create and perpetuate a culture in which sexual predation still pervades college campuses.