BYU Changes Honor Code Policy re: Amnesty for Sexual Assault Victims

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

Students who report being sexually assaulted at Brigham Young University will no longer face the possibility of punishment for honor code violations, such as drinking or extramarital sex.

The nation’s preeminent Mormon university announced the new amnesty policy on Wednesday, acceding to a demand from many activists who saw peril for the victims of sexual assault at the conservative religious institution in Utah.

“Our top priority is the safety and well-being of our students. This is particularly true for those who have been the victims of sexual assault,” the university’s president Kevin J. Worthen wrote in a letter to students and staff on Wednesday. “They have been through a devastating experience, and they are looking for our help and support.”

...

The policy will protect students who report being assaulted, as well as witnesses who report assaults, the advisory council’s chair Janet S. Scharman said in a Q&A on the university website Wednesday.

...

Worthen also announced Wednesday that the school will locate its Title IX Office, which handles sexual assault complaints, in a new space separate from the Honor Code Office, and will employ a full-time Title IX coordinator instead of the current part-time officer, and a new victim advocate. The Title IX Office will not be allowed to share information with the Honor Code Office unless the victim agrees to it.

Overall I think this is a good development.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 26, 2016 by smac97

[Boanerges]

I agree that these are positive steps.

Quote

From: "Kevin J Worthen" <univ-comm@byu.edu>
Date: Oct 26, 2016 9:43 AM
Subject: Advisory Council Study of Sexual Assault Complete

Dear Students, Staff and Faculty,

Today we are announcing that the Advisory Council on Campus Response to Sexual Assault has completed its study and that the President’s Council has agreed with all the recommendations in the Advisory Council’s report. We are releasing that report today, and I wanted you to be the first to have access to it. I encourage you to read the Advisory Council’s full report, as well as its recommendations.
As the Advisory Council notes, sexual assault is an abhorrent offense that violates sacred doctrines – such as moral agency, the sanctity of the body and the sacred nature of marriage and sexual intimacy – that are central to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Sexual assault cannot and will not be tolerated at BYU.

Our top priority is the safety and well-being of our students. This is particularly true for those who have been the victims of sexual assault. They have been through a devastating experience, and they are looking for our help and support. We have an obligation not only to provide that support, both emotional and spiritual, but also to create an environment where sexual assault is eliminated.

The Advisory Council, led by Vice President Janet S. Scharman, shares that commitment. Its report represents hundreds upon hundreds of hours of work since the council was formed in mid-May. It is thoughtful, thorough, candid and extremely helpful. I am deeply grateful to Vice President Scharman, Vice President Sandra Rogers, Dean Ben Ogles and Dr. Julie Valentine for their commitment to helping us find solutions to this complex and challenging issue.

After reviewing the report and recommendations, the President’s Council has determined to accept all of the 23 recommendations. There are several that we will begin to implement immediately, including the following:

Create a new, full-time Title IX coordinator position to replace the existing part-time Title IX coordinator position.
Create a victim advocate / confidential advisor position.
Create a new, physical space to house the Title IX Office in a location separate from the Honor Code Office.
Ensure that, unless the health or safety of others is at risk, the Title IX Office does not share information with the Honor Code Office about the complainant without the complainant’s consent.
Adopt an amnesty clause.
Because the recommendation regarding amnesty involves a change in policy, the exact contents of this clause need to be reviewed by the Student, Faculty and Administrative Advisory Councils before it becomes official policy. In the meantime, we will operate under the amnesty guidelines recommended in the report.

More information about the report and what this means for BYU is contained at https://news.byu.edu/title-ix.

We do not have all the answers to this problem, which is a nationwide issue affecting all colleges and universities. But this report provides an excellent framework on which to build. Because of the Advisory Council’s extremely valuable work, we are in a much stronger position to help those who have suffered the traumatic effects of sexual assault and to prevent such events in the future. Heightened awareness of the issue by each one of us is itself a step in the right direction. I encourage us all to aid in this important endeavor.

Kevin J Worthen

 

[Gray]

Already a thread on this: 

 

[bluebell]

I don't think we can really go wrong when we err on the side of mercy.  The changes seem like a very good thing. 

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think we can really go wrong when we err on the side of mercy.  The changes seem like a very good thing. 

With true mercy, I agree.  There is a form of what I call lazy mercy that excuses repetitive behaviour in claiming to be merciful, but instead they are adding to the person's burden by reinforcing/enabling bad behaviour without finding out what would be truly merciful by encouraging the person to put aside their self destructive behaviour.  I am not saying this is relevant to sexual assault, just being my usual nitpicking person.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Calm

[Sleeper Cell]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Overall I think this is a good development.

I agree.

I do take exception to the report’s implication that BYU caved in to pressure from “activists” (“acceding to a demand from many activists”) while seeming to ignore  the possibility that BYU might have actually been convinced by the arguments on their merits.

I also have concerns that, in some instances,  a criminal defendant might be able to argue that these changes provided a motive for the victim and witnesses to lie (to gain amnesty for their own honor code violations).  For that matter, it is quite possible that, in the future, there may be a case in which the alleged victim and witnesses actually do successfully lie about consent in order to gain amnesty for themselves -- thus destroying the life of an “innocent” man (in the criminal sense of the word).   

But, on the whole, I believe that these changes do further BYU‘s stated primary objective in these matters -- “the safety and well being of … [its] students.”  

[James Tunney]

Outside pressure works again.

[bsjkki]

I was very happy to see this new policy enacted.  This final nugget at the end of the long list of new initiatives gave me even more hope for future improvements.  I think through the research and listening victims, another problem was identified. I hope this means we will see better training for Bishops about how to treat sexual assault victims. Many young victims of sexual assault do not have the ability to verbalize the details of what happened to them. Many Bishops do not have the counseling skills needed to help these victims the proper way. More training and better training is needed for Bishops. 

Campus culture and climate

 

1. » Consider administering campus climate surveys to gather data on sexual assault and the Title IX process.

 

2. » Expand the role of the Title IX Compliance Committee to consult with the Title IX Office on prevention.

 

3. » Inform officials from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about the advisory council’s findings on ecclesiastical leaders’ varied responses to sexual assault.

 

[Sleeper Cell]

2 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Outside pressure works again.

CFR that the policy change was motivated by outside pressure, rather than BYU being honestly convinced that it was the right thing to do.

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

CFR that the policy change was motivated by outside pressure, rather than BYU being honestly convinced that it was the right thing to do.

Yea like this would have changed without outside pressure.

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Outside pressure works again.

would you rather have people getting assaulted, raped etc and too afraid to come forward and things getting buried? what's the alternative? 

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Outside pressure works again.

What it pressure or just realization after issues being brought public that the current policy needed some fixing because it was the right thing to do? 

[Sleeper Cell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Yea like this would have changed without outside pressure.

Like “insiders” never push for (or achieve) policy changes.  But, for the sake of discussion, lets assume that the change wouldn’t have happened had an “outsider” not made the argument.  But I make a distinction between succumbing to outside pressure and having a good faith willingness to consider opposing arguments on their merits.  Don’t you?  

BTW, if I agree with a policy change, I am more inclined to praise the organization for making the change  than to impugn their integrity and motives for doing so.  Your mileage may vary.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think pretty much everyone realized this was coming. It's really the only solution to this conundrum. 

For my part, I say it's worth it to let some honor code violators get a pass if it's the cost to be borne for apprehending more date rapists. 

[HappyJackWagon]

7 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

What it pressure or just realization after issues being brought public that the current policy needed some fixing because it was the right thing to do? 

This is how it works- There's a terrible problem at BYU. The media exposes the problem, creating a public outcry. Activists and media apply pressure to BYU. BYU administrators feel the pressure and see the severity of the problem. They decide to address it. The council makes their recommendation. Administrators accept the recommendations.

In no way do I think BYU administrators thought, "Gee, a lot of people are mad. I guess I'll change this policy." But real pressure works by bringing problems to attention and motivating decision makers to make a change.

The pressure of activist protests and petitions, as well as media attention brought to this subject, brings the problem to a heightened level of attention. It tends to move the issue up the priority list of BYU administration concerns. 

BYU finally addressed an issue that had been a problem for many, many years. What was different at this point and time that led to change? Some of the credit goes to the administration and their willingness to consider the problem, but there was also significant attention brought to the subject, that made it largely unavoidable. I don't see how the public pressure placed on BYU could be seen as anything but a positive driver of this change process.

[James Tunney]

8 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

CFR that the policy change was motivated by outside pressure, rather than BYU being honestly convinced that it was the right thing to do.

It seems pretty obvious to me what happened. Media storm, big-12 snub, then change. Of course you can continue to believe whatever despite the evidence.

[HappyJackWagon]

I was very critical of BYU when this all came out but I think they have handled it very well. I hope the church follows the lead of BYU and addresses their portion of the issue with the same candor, respect, and gravity.

The issue the church needs to address is the role bishops play in counseling survivors and in how they implement the ecclesiastical endorsement policy. Untrained Bishops have far too much power to negatively affect a student's future by withdrawing a student's endorsement.

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Like “insiders” never push for (or achieve) policy changes.  But, for the sake of discussion, lets assume that the change wouldn’t have happened had an “outsider” not made the argument.  But I make a distinction between succumbing to outside pressure and having a good faith willingness to consider opposing arguments on their merits.  Don’t you?  

BTW, if I agree with a policy change, I am more inclined to praise the organization for making the change  than to impugn their integrity and motives for doing so.  Your mileage may vary.

100% agreed 

[HappyJackWagon]

7 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Like “insiders” never push for (or achieve) policy changes.  But, for the sake of discussion, lets assume that the change wouldn’t have happened had an “outsider” not made the argument.  But I make a distinction between succumbing to outside pressure and having a good faith willingness to consider opposing arguments on their merits.  Don’t you?  

BTW, if I agree with a policy change, I am more inclined to praise the organization for making the change  than to impugn their integrity and motives for doing so.  Your mileage may vary.

Personally, I don't care if the pressure came from the outside or the inside. In this case it came from both. But the important thing is there was absolutely pressure which likely caused the administration to take notice.

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Like “insiders” never push for (or achieve) policy changes.  But, for the sake of discussion, lets assume that the change wouldn’t have happened had an “outsider” not made the argument.  But I make a distinction between succumbing to outside pressure and having a good faith willingness to consider opposing arguments on their merits.  Don’t you?  

BTW, if I agree with a policy change, I am more inclined to praise the organization for making the change  than to impugn their integrity and motives for doing so.  Your mileage may vary.

Touche! I'm sorry if my post didn't come across that way, I do give BYU kudos for what they did, and according to the news, they went even further. I love that they did the survey to begin with, that shows they truly have the students welfare at heart. 

But it being the way it was at first, must have slipped the Holy Ghost monitor.

 

[rpn]

I have read the press release and the entire document produced.    I am quite concerned that there is nothing in it that describes the unique aspects of sexual assault on gay students and the kind of speciialized outreach that will be necessary to assure that gay students receive appropriate responses that allow them to retain their privacy as to sexual orientation, as well.   It seems glaringly obvious that gay BYU students are horrendously at risk for being sexual assault victims because any perp would know they cannot tell anything without also outing themselves which we know from the incident a couple of years ago gets them beaten up and thrownout of their apartments at BYU.    I hope they don't overlook the unique needs of this particularly vulnerable population.

And also, there isn't a single word that suggests they are aware that men can also be sexual assault and domestic violence victims, and that is something that will certainly challenge the cultural norms and therefore must be specifically addressed in training and outreach.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

I have read the press release and the entire document produced.    I am quite concerned that there is nothing in it that describes the unique aspects of sexual assault on gay students and the kind of speciialized outreach that will be necessary to assure that gay students receive appropriate responses that allow them to retain their privacy as to sexual orientation, as well.   It seems glaringly obvious that gay BYU students are horrendously at risk for being sexual assault victims because any perp would know they cannot tell anything without also outing themselves which we know from the incident a couple of years ago gets them beaten up and thrownout of their apartments at BYU.    I hope they don't overlook the unique needs of this particularly vulnerable population.

And also, there isn't a single word that suggests they are aware that men can also be sexual assault and domestic violence victims, and that is something that will certainly challenge the cultural norms and therefore must be specifically addressed in training and outreach.

I'm still scrolling through, but I would point out that LGB or male BYU students would still be covered under title IX amnesty clause. Most of the language of the report is gender neutral and not assuming that the victim is female or that the perp is of the opposite sex. So for them not to be covered would entail some language to assume a separate exception to the gender/orientation neutral guidelines given. The only parts that do not appear gender neutral are the ones talking about the utility of women resource service. At which point it should probably be pointed out that the sheer amount of victims that would be straight women (As well as proportion) would necessitate such discussion. LGB is a small subset of the population and if BYU follows similar numbers as the general populace, it would equal few hundred of 30,000+ students. Mean while there is around 15K of women. I'm not saying they shouldn't care and it would be a good topic or interest for BYU's LGBT group to be aware of and give information about. But in general policy, it's not likely to cover individual interests and moreso policy that can cover the largest swaths of victims. Because it is gender/orientation neutral in wording, I think it does that pretty well.

 

With luv,

BD

[JAHS]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Personally, I don't care if the pressure came from the outside or the inside. In this case it came from both. But the important thing is there was absolutely pressure which likely caused the administration to take notice.

I like to call it becoming more informed about the issue and realizing something had to be done about it. You call it pressure.  I disagree, but as long as something is being done about it I'm happy.

 

[Atheist Mormon]

On 10/26/2016 at 2:49 PM, bluebell said:

I don't think we can really go wrong when we err on the side of mercy.  The changes seem like a very good thing. 

"Amnesty for Sexual Assault Victims"

How is it possible to perceive someone guilty under this circumstances? Am I missing something here?

[cinepro]

On 10/26/2016 at 10:33 PM, carbon dioxide said:

What it pressure or just realization after issues being brought public that the current policy needed some fixing because it was the right thing to do? 

People make good decisions in response to "public pressure" all the time.  That's a good thing. 

The bad thing is when someone refuses to make the the good decision in response to "public pressure" because they stubbornly cling to the bad policy in an attempt to appear principled and strong against the pressure.

If someone thinks BYU would have enacted the same policy changes in the same time frame had the victims handled the matter privately and the public had never heard about it, that's fine.  But the fact is, they didn't, so we'll never know.