​The search for change continues: sexual misconduct

At the end of last semester, the Interfraternity Council announced a student-led taskforce that will investigate the role of Greek life in sexual assault on campus with the goal of making recommendations to prevent and address such misconduct. This comes just before last month’s revisions to our sexual misconduct policy that worked to clarify confusing sections, including some of last year’s more substantive update. Although these changes better our sexual misconduct policy, some previously raised issues with the policy have not been addressed and there is still more to be done by students to make our campus safe.

Last Spring, we introduced a bevy of procedural rights not afforded to students in these disciplinary hearings. This concern, among issues raised in other editorials, has not been addressed by the recent changes. Students should have published answers to why and in what ways these hearings differ from normal legal proceedings, if only to clear up understandable misconceptions they may have. For example, a comparison of standards of evidence that clearly explains why we operate under a preponderance of evidence is vital to understanding that crucial piece of the policy. This is not to say there has not been progress thanks to administrative statements, like one last year by Office of Student Conduct Director Stephen Bryan on why sentencing guidelines are hidden. In either case, answers to more common questions, like how hearing panel members are trained, need to have a place in the upcoming Frequently Asked Questions section to keep dialogue on the policy fresh and well-informed.

Speaking to students—affiliated and non-affiliated alike— it is clear there is potential for the IFC’s taskforce to make useful recommendations for campus culture and the misconduct policy. Taskforce members must be sure to eliminate conflicts of interest in their self-examination and shy away from seeing the taskforce at all as a source of public relations capital. Current IFC president Max Schreiber said “We’re the only school in the country to have something like this,” but while confidence is encouraging in the classroom and on the sports field, the Duke community should never rest on being “better” than other schools when it comes to sexual misconduct. We should take these initiatives in stride and continue to improve.

An area always in need of improvement is informing students in a way corresponding to how students engage in discussion. The new Title IX session during Orientation Week is a great step that enables their conversations. A problem associated with this and sessions like True Blue is that they do not always capture students' full attention. Smaller group discussions that challenge people to connect legal definitions of sexual misconduct with their personal understanding or misunderstanding of policy and situations of misconduct present an opportunity for mentoring between students. Making all of this a continuing experience for sophomores, juniors and seniors should also be strongly considered. In order to take students’ understanding from theoretical to interpersonal, survivors could also voluntarily speak or write to students about their experiences. Including current or former student narratives in assemblies would command attention powerfully.

Further changes to the sexual misconduct policy and campus discourse are a necessity to reducing sexual misconduct on campus. The steps Duke administration and students have taken, especially by those students who have spoken about their experiences, have done well in making the issue a part of campus consciousness. And put simply, Duke students, administrators and faculty cannot stop here. We must continue to improve how sexual misconduct is addressed both in policy and in discussion.