[Above – BYU Advisory Council on Campus Response to Sexual Assault: Sandra Rogers, Jan Scharman, Ben Ogles and Julie Valentine]
Earlier this year there was sturm und drang regarding the manner in which rape victims have been treated by BYU, with the matter splashing briefly onto the national stage. On May 21, M* featured posts by me (The Relief Society might have handled it better…) and by Michael Davidson (lazy reporting on the BYU rape scandal).
I was pleased to note the story about BYU’s updated policies regarding Title IX led the most recent BYU Today e-mail, with a link to both the Q&A regarding the recommendations as well as a link to the pdf for the full report.
The main outcome was a recommendation that reporting victims, the accused, and witnesses should be granted amnesty from university discipline unless the health or safety of others is at risk.
Advisory Council Chair, Vice President Jan Scharman, explained how the amnesty for Honor Code violations would work:
First, to help address both factors previously mentioned and to encourage reporting, the names of victims or witnesses reporting sexual misconduct will not be shared by the Title IX Office with the Honor Code Office, unless at the request and written permission of the reporting student or if the health or safety of others is at risk. In some situations in the past, an Honor Code review could follow the Title IX investigation. This will no longer be the case.
Second, neither a reporting victim, the accused, nor a witness of an incident of sexual misconduct will be subjected to university discipline for an Honor Code violation reported to the Title IX Office occurring at or near the time of the reported incident – unless the health or safety of others is at risk. When a BYU student, who is accused in a sexual-assault case, is found responsible for violating BYU’s Sexual Misconduct Policy, the Title IX Office may share information about the accused student with the Honor Code Office for the limited purpose of allowing it to determine disciplinary action; in such cases, the Title IX Office will redact the names of complainants, victims and witnesses from all information before it is shared.
Our goal is to help students. Therefore, the university does reserve the right to initiate interventions, such as counseling or education, for those who have violated the Honor Code, including the reporting victim and witnesses. We found this is a standard practice at other universities as well.
I applaud the recommendations of the Advisory Council, as well as BYU’s decision to adopt all the recommendations. I also applaud BYU for beginning their effort to develop recommendations immediately upon public outrage on the matter. This was several months before the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) notified BYU it was opening an investigation based on the public statements made in May 2016.
And because I’m Meg Stout…
I find a correlation between what the BYU Advisory Council has recommended and what I think happened in 1842 in Nauvoo. As Emma Smith explained to the Relief Society on May 19, 1842, “the time had been when charity had covered a multitude of sins— but now it is necessary that sin should be expos’d— that heinous sins were among us—”
I think the amnesty being recommended by the Advisory Council is entirely consistent with what Joseph Smith and Emma Smith did upon learning of gross iniquities in the winter of 1841/1842. As Emma had suggested, there was a time when an amnesty had been granted to many, “charity had covered a multitude of sins.” But when it became clear in the spring of 1842 that there were still those perpetuating gross iniquities against the likes of Mary Clift, Matilda and Margaret Nyman, and Sarah Searcy Miller, it was deemed “necessary that sin should be expos’d” to protect the health and safety of others.
[Yes, I have a singular focus on Joseph Smith and Nauvoo. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, feel free to check out the digest of my initial posts on this history or download the June 2016 pdf of the resultant book, Reluctant Polygamist.]
New Post: BYU Title IX Policy Updates: [Above – BYU Advisory Council on Campus Response to Sexua… https://t.co/qSPGZSaIUw #LDS #Mormon
TheMillennialStar: BYU Title IX Policy Updates https://t.co/gJ2SW4EIZ2 #lds #mormon
RT @ldsblogs: TheMillennialStar: BYU Title IX Policy Updates https://t.co/gJ2SW4EIZ2 #lds #mormon
I am grateful that this issue is being resolved. I am also grateful that in the end it was found that the honor code itself wasnt to blame but rather the confusion over reporting and how cases were handled was mostly the problem. Hopefully BYU can continue its excellence in upholding a high moral standard and showing the world our standards of morality protect us and others.
The only thing in the report that left me scratching my head was this:
3. Share with officials of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the findings of the advisory council regarding ecclesiastical leaders’ varied responses to sexual-assault reports.
The other topics have some verbiage or explanation, but this stands alone both in the summary and in the full report. I would like to know how varied the responses are of ecclesiastical leaders to sexual assault reports. I can’t tell if the advisory council, in dealing with this stuff, found that local ecclesiastical leaders’ responses to claims were all over the board, or what. We’ve all read comments by people who say they told their bishop they were the victim of date rape and the bishop supposedly blamed the victim. Yet, other commenters have said they reported date rape and the bishop told them to immediately report it law enforcement. I know what the church handbook says about this stuff — I just wonder if the instructions are being followed.
Hi IDIAT,
Doesn’t sound like there was much need to head scratch. If the council had found that ecclesiastical leaders had consistent responses to sexual-assault reports then it likely wouldn’t have been a thing requiring mention.
Given that LDS ecclesiastical leaders are lay members with little formal training (compared to career individuals in any comparable position), it should come as no surprise that there are large variations. The confidential nature of such matters and ecclesiastical responses means that there would not be the kind of community shared learning that occurs with matters that can be openly talked about.
I imagine that the findings include aberrations that fall far outside of appropriate behavior. And such aberrations would therefore be appropriate to share with Church leadership so that appropriate checks and balances can be implemented.
Because the Church is more like a kind family than an adversarial schoolyard, the approach to training ecclesiastical leaders will reflect a desire to correct with kindness (c.f., D&C 121) rather than openly shaming erring leaders (e.g., the proposed external entity to assess ecclesiastical abuse that was being promoted in advance of the September Six excommunications).
On a separate topic I have reason to be aware that ecclesiastical leaders for BYU congregations are not uniformly adherent to the gospel as I understand it. But Christ offers salvation to all, including the unknowing heathen. I’m sure salvation is an option for the lay LDS ecclesiastical leader who has made mistakes in ministering. And inasmuch as possible, I’m sure the LDS leadership will be attempting to minimize future harm.
As usual, my impression about these changes seems to differ somewhat from others.
I don’t see the implemented changes as some kind of “mea culpa”. Rather, I believe this is a positive statement from BYU. No, we’re not perfect. But we recognize that we can do better. As in all things.
These changes are not just superficial. Especially the “amnesty” provision. Especially in cases involving criminal accusations. I believe it is entirely appropriate for the secular process to work, prior to any other handling from the University or Church leaders. Nobody needs to make any judgments about the alleged incident until it has been legally adjudicated.
Sad sad sad. My wife and I have decided that our tithes and offerings are for the Lord’s disposition but we won’t be making any discretionary contributions to BYU. I guess it isn’t possible for women to take any responsibility for their own actions. Henceforth all a woman needs to tell anyone is that she was raped. Case closed. I will be jumped saying that I am over drawing the conclusion but mark my words. I don’t care what happens to a man who is falsely accused of rape when he thought it was consensual. Tough luck! Keep your zipper up. If you are a BYU student then good riddance. But your weak little playmate can moon you on your way out. Good for her. She wasn’t capable of honor anyway but you knew that as your sordid scene played out. And if you really did rape her then rot in hell.
Interesting response, given that the amnesty applies to victims, attackers and witnesses. Also interesting since in the broader world it is accepted that victims of sexual assault are not uniquely female.
What individual at BYU could have a legitimate expectation that their sexual interaction with someone else outside of marriage could be presumed to be happily consensual? At best it would be honor among thieves. So a participant in supposedly consensual extramarital sex play shouldn’t be surprised if they are ratted out.
As for variability amongst BYU ecclesiastical leaders, I know of at least one who feels it is a terrible shame that the Church won’t allow individuals to serve missions merely because they have committed sexual sin.
As for the “weak little playmate” side of the house, I know of one individual who was raped in two separate instances in their youth. After getting their life together, they went to the temple and encountered one of the rapists in that venue. The rapist winked at the individual. It took the victim about a decade before they were willing to enter the temple again.
From the stories I read back in May, the outrage was over cases where a BYU student had been victimized by someone who was not associated with BYU. Upon reporting the sexual assault (which ranges from unwanted sexual touching to battery with a sexual element), the victim or witness found they had put their educational career at risk because their report triggered an investigation into their “honor.” If one is incapable of understanding why this would have an unacceptable chilling effect on victim and witness reporting, then I can only suggest that one may not be aware of how friends and loved ones have been negatively impacted by fear their victimization would be compounded by going to the authorities.