Commentary

Conduct Unbecoming

One of the more disgusting truths about the world in which we live is that there are very few things quite so necessary as discussions about rape and other such sex crimes. I think everyone would agree that this planet would be better off if those conversations were never held at all because rape simply did not happen. Like many utopias, the one I'm proposing sure as hell doesn't exist now, and is probably not going to.

So we continue having the conversations, and we do our best to prevent the crime from affecting those in our community.

Truthfully, there is not much more that we can do, which is why the ASUO executive office has been working extensively to propose changes in the Student Conduct Code language regarding sexual misconduct.

I greatly admire the concern and care with which our student government is addressing this issue, and most of the changes which have been suggested seem very appropriate, even laudable. However, the ASUO has also recommended a few small but significant changes which I feel detract from the credibility of the proposal.

The first of these problems obviously stems from a very noble desire to demonstrate compassion and respect for those who are impacted by sexual misconduct.

If I were an Emerald columnist, this incredible purity of motive would probably lead me to drop the complaint altogether, but unfortunately this rag you're reading is the Commentator, and a bleeding heart just doesn't fly around here (my editor won't allow it). So, with all this build up, I'm going to state my first little gripe, and all of you will wonder what the big deal is. Here goes: The biggest problem I have with the ASUO's proposed language is the use of the word "survivor" to refer to the individual who brings the accused up on charges. I am sure that you are thinking that this is, first of all, not a problem, and second of all, if it were a problem it would be a silly one. But think for a minute.

Imagine Oregon legal system, if in cases of civil law, referred to the accusing party as the "victim" rather than the "plaintiff." Using the term "survivor" in our Conduct Code is exactly the same thing. Calling the accuser a "survivor" (even if she or he really is one) implies, from before any hearing has even begun, that there was something which had to be survived. Basically, it implies that this person survived a rape at the hands of the accused. It is completely irrelevant whether this is true or not in most cases. Even if ninety-nine out of one hundred accused rapists are guilty (and I have no idea what the actual statistic is), that guilt must be determined during due process of the law. And as soon as we call the accuser "survivor" we may as well call the accused, "perpetrator." And that cannot claim the title of justice. There are at least two ways of dealing with this problem. The first is incredibly simple: revert to the use of the word individual, which the current code employs, and which carries no sympathetic overtones. Sympathy and caring for the survivors of violent sexual crimes is admirable and natural, but that sympathy should not taint the letter of the law.

The legal system should sympathize with (I use the word sympathize to signify the identify with or to see from the same viewpoint as) the victim only after it has been proven that the accused is guilty. So, it would be very simple to change the word back to individual and be done with it. But like I said, there are at least two ways of dealing with the problem. One such alternative idea would be processing such claims through the University's kangaroo court only after the real courts have handed down a conviction (misdemeanor, felony, infraction, even if it was arrived at via a plea bargain). That way, we can retain the use of the word survivor, and use it appropriately. Besides, I have serious questions regarding the validity of the University's kangaroo courts anyway. I mean, are a couple of University bureaucrat types really a substitute for a judge and jury?

What happens if the University expels an accused student only to have the legal system acquit him? Is the University really above the law? Can it kick out an innocent (well, a "not guilty") person because it believes itself to be more caring, intelligent, or savvy than the people of the state of Oregon? Anyhow, these are just questions, and to be honest I haven't looked into the University's little Justice Quickie-Mart at all. Perhaps that will be the subject of a future piece. It is very possible that the University has appropriate measures to deal with such situations, and I don't want to continue harping on it because of the very real possibility that I am making an ass out of myself. So let me recap my point thus far by saying that, as things stand, the term "survivor" is not appropriate to the Student Conduct Code.

My main complaint thus concisely stated, I would like to bring up some small things that struck me not so much as problems as absurdities. For example, the University of Oregon recognizes acts of sexual misconduct which materially impact the quality of life of the survivor or safety of the campus community (among other circumstances).

According to Jenna Wasson, the ASUO University Affairs Coordinator, the new language is necessary in part because the current language is vague. In this sentence, at least, the vagueness is not much improved. Can someone define materially impact for me, PLEASE? Or how about the subsection on Unwanted Sexual Behavior, which includes article (C), Which a person knew or should have known was unwanted, and would likely cause emotional distress to a person of the same sex.

Wasson was kind enough to explain to me that the person of the same sex actually means a person of the same sex as the survivor which should probably be stated clearly, for posterity's sake.

More importantly, however, what is the deal with the clause or "should have known" thrown into the mix. I realize that a large part of the law rests on the idea that a reasonable human being would be able to recognize certain societal expectations. But to simply say that the accused "should have known" serves as yet another warning: the fix is in. Or, to be more accurate, the fix is not in. At least not all the way.

Besides these serious complaints, however (and I hope that the people in charge of this endeavor are willing to see this as more than just another Commentator rant) there are some very definite improvements taking shape. For example, Wasson notes that the current language does not explicitly define rape or sexual misconduct, which the new proposal certainly does. In fact, the code currently instituted does not even address the issue of consent, which is a highly stressed part of the offered changes. If only for these two reasons, this rewriting is one of very few truly important issues the student government has tackled in my three years here. It is tragic that there will always be rape and sexual assault on this campus, but Wasson is entirely correct when she says, "We believe that it is important for the school to send a strong message to students at this University that rape and sexual assault will not be tolerated. We can't stop it, but we do what we can. Let us just make certain that what we do does not unfairly bias a system which is set up neither to enable rape nor to punish the innocent, but to provide just hearings and determine appropriate courses of action."

Mike Kron, a junior majoring in English, is a staff writer for the Oregon Commentator