In the midst of heavy controversy, the philosophy department hosted a colloquium for professor of philosophy Ted Everett’s paper about sexual assault awareness that took place on Wednesday April 24.
The announcement of a speech titled “Against ‘Sexual’ ‘Assault’ ‘Awareness’” provoked intense reactions leading up to the colloquium, reflected by a heavy turnout. Though the content of colloquium was not quite as extreme as the language used to advertise it, much of his message had issues.
A significant portion of the speech discussed precautions women should take to decrease the likelihood of being sexually assaulted. He stressed the importance of not putting oneself in a position where one is severely drunk, surrounded by unfamiliar and untrusted individuals. While it may be prudent to avoid putting yourself in dangerous situations, the way Everett argued this is problematic.
While criticizing a woman’s actions after she goes through a sexual assault or rape, Everett, stressing the importance of avoiding “reckless” behavior is important. The argument was essentially focusing on what women can do to avoid rape rather than what can be done to stop rape entirely. Everett made it very clear that he at least somewhat blames a woman if she puts herself in these situations and is raped.
A useful lens through which to view this issue would be the cultural and societal elements that socialize men to act aggressively toward women, a topic that Everett failed to address. We at The Lamron believe that blaming the victim of sexual assault can never be productive, is always abhorrent and this type of rhetoric will lead us down a dangerous road.
In addition, this ignores the issue of acquaintance rape. According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, two-thirds of rapes are committed by someone known to the victim. At no point during his speech did Everett address acquaintance rape.
Everett also took issue with the adage “no means no,” arguing that no is subject to change. He contended there are varying degrees of rejection and in some cases no is not a definitive answer. Everett’s comments suggested it is okay to question a woman’s rejection of one’s advances and that with persistence, one could yield a different answer. Whether or not that is true, going against a woman’s insistence when she does not want to go further can lead to a damaging experience for her. Avoidance of such an experience should be the top priority for both parties involved.
Everett’s comments succeeded in starting a conversation about sexual assault awareness. That much is productive. It is hard to see, however, where in that conversation Everett’s comments fit. The arguments in his speech were reactionary; he offered nothing to attack the heart of the issue of sexual assault. Nor did he offer suggestions to improve education of sexual assault. He simply attempted to dismantle the current mechanisms of sexual assault awareness. Despite Everett’s preface that his statements were “tentative and open to discussion,” his unflinching tone, especially during the question and answer session, suggested otherwise. Given the content of his speech, Everett should take his own advice and reflect on his beliefs.