1994: Violence Against Women Act and the Clery Act passed.
2013: Campus SaVE Act passed.
2016: Safe Campus Act?
Let's hope not.
The name of the Safe Campus Act sounds promising and straightforward, yet the consequences for passing this act may actually outweigh the benefits. According to the Washington Post, this controversial act is "most notable for its efforts to ensure that students are able to get a fair hearing on campus, and give law enforcement a more prominent role in [sexual assault] cases."
The underlying premise of the Safe Campus Act is false allegations, though no one has come straight out and said it. Under the Act, victims need to report their cases to the police for any sort of justice to be served. So, the main issue is that it tends to favor the accused rather than the victim of the alleged sexual assault.
Eluna Nanos of the Huffington Post wrote a strongly worded piece on the bill. The first two lines of the article are, "'Fraternity boys need more protection than rape victims do.' That's the mentality that went into hiring Trent Lott and others to lobby for the Safe Campus Act."
The idea behind the Safe Campus Act is necessary to enforce: keep our campuses safe. The statutes of this particular bill, though, is not going to do that. It will make it harder and scarier for victims to voice their stories. "Under the Safe Campus Act, girl gets raped and knows talking to campus security will be meaningless unless she is ready to testify in court. Girl doesn't report. Rapist goes free," explains Nanos. Victims should be able to report to who they wish, and, in return, feel safe on their campuses. Too often, victims find themselves dropping out of a college or university because of the social repercussions of speaking out against their attacker. This bill does allow colleges and universities to provide protection to the victim around campus, requiring the accused to avoid the accuser. And, yeah, that will work...
Essentially, the victim's fate in the situation would lie in the school's hands. Do they launch an internal investigation with the police? Or do they try to sweep the allegations under the carpet to preserve their image? I would assume the latter. Really, that is what is happening right now anyway, and the Safe Campus Act will promote those actions on behalf of the administration.
Obviously, I do not agree with this bill, but I have two questions when it comes to its motives. One, are former "frat boy" politicians trying to protect their fellow brothers? Two, is the government trying to save money?
To address the first question, Nanos mentioned that aforementioned Trent Lott contracted with multiple fraternities to lobby for this bill. Not to stereotype any frats, or Greek life in general, but it seems most sexual assaults occur in accordance with hazing and frat houses. Now, this act comes into question that will essentially protect the accused. I am no politician, but if I were Lott, I would not be contracting with fraternities to lobby for this bill.
My second question came to me while I was writing. The Violence Against Women Act, passed in 1994 by President Clinton, led to funded rape investigations and prosecutions. With every allegation, there needs to an investigation. During the investigation, the detectives and/or administration find the rapist was falsely accused. Money is lost. Are these Republication representatives penny-pinching and calling it the Safe Campus Act? I certainly hope not.
In order to get opinions on the subject, I conducted a Twitter poll (awesome new feature, by the way). The first question I asked was, "Would you support the passing of the #SafeCampusAct?" 54% of voters answered "yes." Now, in order to clarify that statistic, I put up another poll, asking "Do you fully understand the terms of the #SafeCampusAct?" 71% of voters said "no."
To combat sexual violence on our college campuses, we need to discuss this bill. The name is not necessarily a reflection of what it stands for. The only good thing that could come of the Safe Campus Act is the discussion that can take place. The more we critique, the more we understand. The more we understand, the better our campuses can be.
