Advertisement

The Administration of Consent: An Exploration of How Consent Education is Understood and Implemented at a Small Private University

  • Francesca DegiuliEmail author
  • Jordan Nowotny
Original Paper
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

In recent years, sexual consent has become a central element in both the prevention and the resolution of sexual assault on American college campuses. Due to these developments, sexual consent has become a catchall term that appears in multiple programs from freshman orientations to student organization events, from human resources meetings to sexual assault investigations. While the word is omnipresent, its meaning remains ambiguous to many. To understand the root of this ambiguity, we use qualitative interviews and observations to investigate how administrators, educators, and staff of a small private university understand and implement consent education. From our analysis, we find that administrators, faculty and staff hold a great deal of influence in shaping the culture of consent. However, in the process of translating concept into practice, this influence, far from delivering a coherent and well-developed educational platform, splinters into a multiplicity of often contradictory messages. Ultimately, this leaves students and the community at large to draw from individual pre-existing understandings of gender and sexuality to form their own definitions or seek answers from campus community members who are trusted or aligned in worldviews.

Keywords

Sexual consent education Gender and sexuality Higher education College students 

Notes

Funding

This project was funded in part by an internal university grant.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest associated with this work.

References

  1. Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4), 441–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams-Curtis, L. E., & Forbes, G. B. (2004). College women’s experiences of sexual coercion: A review of cultural, perpetrator, victim, and situational variables. Trauma, Violence, Abuse, 5(2), 91–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, L. (2003). Girls want sex, boys want love: Resisting dominant discourses of (hetero)sexuality. Sexualities, 6(2), 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armstrong, E. A., Hamilton, L., & Sweeney, B. (2006). Sexual assault on campus: A multi-level, integrative approach to party rape. Social Problems, 53, 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Association of American Universities. (2015). AAU climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct. Retrieved March 18, 2016, from https://www.aau.edu/key-issues/aau-climate-survey-sexual-assault-and-sexual-misconduct-2015.
  6. Becker, H., Geer, B., Hughes, E. C., & Strauss, A. L. (1976). Boys in white: Students culture in medical school. New Brunswick, NJ and London, UK: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Bedera, N., & Nordmeyer, K. (2015). ‘Never go out alone’: An analysis of college rape prevention tips. Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 19(3), 533–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beres, M. A. (2007). ‘Spontaneous’ sexual consent: An analysis of sexual consent literature. Feminism & Psychology, 17(1), 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beres, M. A. (2014). Rethinking the concept of consent for anti-sexual violence activism and education. Feminism & Psychology, 24(3), 373–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berlant, L. (2016). The commons: Infrastructures for troubling times. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(3), 393–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brady, G., Lowe, P., Brown, G., Osmond, J., & Newman, M. (2018). ‘All in all, it is just a judgement call’: Issues surrounding sexual consent in young people’s heterosexual encounters. Journal of Youth Studies, 21(1), 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burgess, R. G. (1984). In the field: An introduction to field research. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  13. CALCASA (California Coalition Against Sexual Assault). (2016). Sexual assault prevention on U.S. college campuses: A national scan. Retrieved December 1, 2018, from www.calcasa.org/download/25211/.
  14. Cantor, D., Fisher, B. Chibnall, S., Townsend, R., Lee, H., Bruce, C., et al. (2015). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct. WESTAT. Retrieved September 19, 2016, from https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/%40%20Files/Climate%20Survey/AAU_Campus_Climate_Survey_12_14_15.pdf.
  15. Corcoran, C. (1992). From victim control to social change: A feminist perspective on campus rape and prevention programs. In J. Christler & D. Howard (Eds.), New directions in feminist psychology (pp. 130–140). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Coy, M., Kelly, L., Vera-Gray, F., Garner, M., & Kanyeredzi, A. (2016). From ‘no means no’ to ‘an enthusiastic yes’: Changing the discourse on sexual consent through sex and relationships education. In Global perspectives and key debates in sex and relationships education: Addressing issues of gender, sexuality, plurality and power (pp. 84–99). Palgrave: Pivot, London.Google Scholar
  17. Crehan, K. (2016). Gramsci’s common sense: Inequality and its narratives. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Curtis, J. N., & Burnett, S. (2017). Affirmative consent: What do college student leaders think about “yes means yes” as the standard for sexual behavior? American Journal of Sexuality Education, 12(3), 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Daigle, L. E., Fisher, B. S., & Stewart, M. (2009). The effectiveness of sexual victimization prevention among college students: A summary of “what works”. Victims and Offenders, 4(4), 398–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Delamater, C. (2016). What “yes means yes” means for New York schools: The positive effects of New York’s efforts to combat campus sexual assault through affirmative consent. Albany Review, 79(2), 591–615.Google Scholar
  21. Donat, P. L., & White, J. W. (2000). Re-examining the issue of nonconsent in acquaintance rape. In C. Travis & J. White (Eds.), Sexuality, society, and feminism (pp. 355–376). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Farris, C., Treat, T. A., Viken, R. J., & McFall, R. M. (2008). Sexual coercion and the misperception of sexual intent. Clinical Psychological Review, 28(1), 48–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freitas, D. (2018). Consent on campus: A manifesto. London and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Geertz, C. (1994). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In M. Martin & L. McIntyre (Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of social science (pp. 213–231). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Grigoriadis, V. (2018). Blurred lines: Rethinking sex, power, and consent on campus. New York, NY: Eamon Dolan/Mariner Books.Google Scholar
  26. Hall, D. S. (1998). Consent for sexual behavior in a college student population. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 1(10), 1–16.Google Scholar
  27. Halley, J. (2016). The move to affirmative consent. Signs Currents. Retrieved February 9, 2017, from signsjournal.org/currents-affirmative-consent/halley/.
  28. Hickman, S. E., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (1999). “By the semi-mystical appearance of a condom”: How young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations. Journal of Sex Research, 36(3), 258–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hirsch, J. S., Khan, S. R., Wamboldt, A., & Mellins, C. A. (2019). Social dimensions of sexual consent among cisgender heterosexual college students: Insights from ethnographic research. Journal of Adolescent Health, 64(1), 26–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Humphreys, S. E., & Kahn, A. S. (2000). Fraternities, athletic teams, and rape: Importance of identification with a risky group. Journal of interpersonal violence, 15(12), 1313–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Humphreys, T. (2007). Perceptions of sexual consent: The impact of relationship history and gender. Journal of Sex Research, 44(4), 307–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Humphreys, T. P., Muehlenhard, C., Peterson, Z., & Jozkowski, K. (2017). Understanding the complexity of sexual consent: Normative attitudes and behaviors in university women and men. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 14(5), e235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jarrett, V. (2014). A renewed call to action to end rape and sexual assault. [The White House Blog]. Retrieved March 21, 2017, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/01/22/renewed-call-action-end-rape-and-sexual-assault.
  34. Jozkowski, K. N. (2015). “Yes means yes”? Sexual consent policy and college students. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 47(2), 16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jozkowski, K. N., Marcantonio, T. L., & Hunt, M. (2017). College students’ sexual consent communication and perceptions of sexual double standards: A qualitative investigation. Perspective on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 49(4), 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jozkowski, K. N., & Peterson, Z. D. (2013). College students and sexual consent: Unique insights. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 517–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jozkowski, K. N., Peterson, Z. D., Sanders, S. A., Dennis, B., & Reece, M. (2014). Gender differences in heterosexual college students’ conceptualizations and indicators of sexual consent: Implications for contemporary sexual assault prevention education. The Journal of Sex Research, 51(8), 904–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lipka, S. (2015). An arc of outrage: Despite the clamor, the real conversation about campus sexual assault has hardly begun. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved April 26, 2017, from http://chronicle.com/article/An-Arc-of-Outrage/229271/.
  39. MacKinnon, C. A. (1983). Feminism, Marxism, method and the state: Toward feminist jurisprudence. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 8(4), 635–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McCann, M. (1994). Rights at work: Pay equity reform and the politics of legal mobilization. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey Bass Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Muehlenhard, C. L., Humphreys, T. P., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2016). The complexities of sexual consent among college students: A conceptual and empirical review. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(4–5), 457–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Muehlenhard, C. L., Peterson, Z. D., Humphreys, T. P., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2017). Evaluating the one-in-five statistic: Women’s risk of sexual assault while in college. The Journal of Sex Research, 54(4–5), 549–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nielsen, L. B. (2004). License to harass: Law, hierarchy and public speech. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Ortiz, R., & Shafer, A. (2017). Define your line: Evaluating a peer-to-peer sexual consent education campaign to improve sexual consent understanding among undergraduate students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 60(2), S105–S106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Perkins, W., & Warner, J. (2017). Sexual violence response and prevention: Studies of campus policies and practices. Journal of school violence, 16(3), 237–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Powell, A. (2010). Sex, power, and consent: Youth culture and the unwritten rules. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Structuring the interview. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, 2, 129–151.Google Scholar
  49. Schultz, V. (1998). Reconceptualizing sexual harassment. The Yale Law Journal, 107(6), 1683–1805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schultz, V. (2018). Reconceptualizing sexual harassment again. Yale Law Journal. Retrieved December 9, 2019, from https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/reconceptualizing-sexual-harassment-again.
  51. Sinozich, S., & Langton, L. (2014). Rape and sexual assault victimization among college age females, 1995–2013. Special report U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved March 18, 2016, from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf.
  52. Srivastava, A., & Thomson, S. B. (2009). Framework analysis: A qualitative methodology for applied policy research. Journal of Administration and Governance, 4(2), 72–79.Google Scholar
  53. State of California. (2014). State bill SB-967, 2014.Google Scholar
  54. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(1), 73–86.Google Scholar
  55. Talesh, S. (2009). The privatization of public legal rights: How manufacturers construct the meaning of consumer law. Law and Society, 43, 527–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Dear colleague letter. Retrieved June 10, 2017, from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html.
  57. U.S. Department of Justice. (2012). An updated definition of rape. Retrieved March 20, 2019, from https://www.justice.gov/archives/ovw/blog/updated-definition-rape.
  58. Warren, P., Swan, S., & Allen, C. T. (2015). Comprehension of sexual consent as a key factor in the perpetration of sexual aggression among college men. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 24(8), 897–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weinberg, J. D. (2015). The social construction of consent. White paper. Received April 4, 2017, from https://thesocietypages.org/papers/consent/.
  60. White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault (US). (2014). Not alone: The first report of the White House Task Force to protect students from sexual assault. White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault.Google Scholar
  61. Youngberg, E. (2017). California’s yes means yes standard: A starting point for college sexual assault policy reform. Golden Gate University Law Review, 47, 205.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Social Sciences and History DepartmentFairleigh Dickinson UniversityMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations