BYU Hypocrisy and Double Standard

[smac97]

On 8/13/2021 at 3:47 PM, Calm said:

Date rape often includes drinking or engaging in behavior that breaks the honor code before the rape occurs. 

Right.  And my understanding is that BYU has modified its policies to allow victims of sexual assault to avoid punishment for that other behavior.  Amnesty.  See, e.g., this May 2018 article:

Quote

Brigham Young University’s amnesty clause for sexual assault survivors has officially been included in the university’s written sexual misconduct policy, the university announced Monday.

The amnesty clause, which states anyone reporting sexual misconduct will not be disciplined for honor code violations that happened at or near the time of sexual misconduct, was approved by the university a year and a half ago as part of 23 recommendations made by the university’s Advisory Council on Campus Response to Sexual Assault.

“This significant accomplishment is the result of many individuals at the university working together,” Janet Scharman, the Student Life vice president, said in the announcement. “Our goal from the beginning has been to create an environment where sexual assault is eliminated on our campus.”

 

All of the 23 recommendations have been adopted by the university. Those include physically separating the honor code and Title IX offices, hiring a full-time Title IX coordinator and sending out a campus climate survey.

The updated sexual misconduct policy was approved by the BYU President’s Council this month. A finalized amnesty policy was announced last summer.

BYU came under fire two years ago for how it handled sexual assault cases after students reported they were investigated for possible honor code violations after reporting their assaults.

The above-referenced 23 recommendations, submitted in October 2016 and later adopted in May 2018, are available here (starting on p. 18 of the PDF).  One of these recommendations was:

Quote

Add to the Sexual Misconduct Policy an amnesty statement regarding possible Honor Code violations occurring at or near the time of a reported sexual assault.

Thomas-Card and Eichele (2016) provide the following guidance: “Choosing to report a sexual assault is a big decision for a victim/survivor. Many factors influence whether one chooses to file a report or not and with whom to file that report. If alcohol or drugs are involved, having an amnesty policy for victim/survivors is essential to establish both with the college/university and also campus security.”

The establishment of amnesty or leniency clauses in sexual misconduct policies is a controversial issue. Some argue that complainants should ultimately be held accountable for any violations of university policies or the Honor Code. Because most victims of sexual assault are reluctant to report (Rennison, Dragiewicz, & DeKeseredy, 2013; Orchowski, Meyer, & Gidycz, 2009; Mitchell & Peterson, 2008), removing as many barriers as possible is extremely important. Indeed, in his visit to campus, David Lisak indicated that increasing reporting is the “Holy Grail” of sexual assault intervention and prevention.

We have two primary reasons for favoring measures that may increase reporting:

a.     We cannot provide help and assistance to individuals who do not report, and we want to help as many victims as possible.

b.     Since as many as 60 percent of all perpetrators are serial perpetrators (Lisak & Miller, 2002), we want to be able to create a safer campus by intervening quickly with those who violate the Sexual Misconduct Policy.

The sexual misconduct policies of many universities include some variety of amnesty, immunity, or leniency clause. Most of these policies refer to underage drinking or drug use, but some refer to other types of student conduct. Some have limits on the amnesty depending on the circumstances (e.g., at or near the time of the assault or circumstances that include a safety risk).

As an advisory council we reviewed many other university amnesty clauses, consulted with our visiting experts, and considered the recommendations received through our interviews, through the feedback website, and in relevant literature. We also vigorously discussed the implications for such a statement at BYU, where we have a unique mission and Honor Code representing the principles of our faith. We debated whether our charge was broad enough that we should draft an amnesty clause or simply recommend that the university adopt one, knowing that others at the university would need to implement that recommendation, if accepted. In the end, we decided to provide key principles that may guide the creation of such a clause as well as a draft statement that could be used as a starting point. Those key principles and the draft statement are included in the appendix of this document.

We recognize that university policy is changed through a prescribed process that includes seeking feedback from faculty, staff, and student representatives. As a result, we are realistic about the fact that the amnesty statement draft included in this document is likely to be different from what is included in the final revision to the Sexual Misconduct Policy. Yet we feel strongly enough about this recommendation that we decided to clearly ­represent our thoughts regarding the essential elements to include in a revision of the policy.

How is this policy, accepted and enacted more than three years ago, not responsive to the concern about sexual assault victims being punished for contemporaneous violations of the Honor Code?  

Am I missing something?  Canadiandude?  Are you aware of these policy changes?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 16, 2021 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

On 8/13/2021 at 2:43 PM, Navidad said:

Thanks Calm. Might I add a Mennonite joke? We don't believe in premarital sex because it leads to dancing!

Thanks, Navidad.  I needed that.

Edited August 17, 2021 by Kenngo1969