Widgets Magazine

University sexual assault policy incorporates ‘Yes Means Yes’ law

On Sept. 30, the University’s written sexual assault policy, as outlined in the Annual Safety, Security & Fire Report, began to include new language aimed at establishing a clear parallel between University policy and California’s SB 967.

Nicknamed “Yes Means Yes,” SB 967 requires California universities receiving state funding for student financial aid to make affirmative consent a central element of their sexual assault policies.

Several new clauses clarifying the meaning of “affirmative consent” were also added to the 2014 campus security report.

“Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent,” the policy reads, adding that explicit expression of consent may be revoked at any time during sexual activity.

Affirmative consent has served as a cornerstone of Stanford assault policy since 2012, said Lauren Schoenthaler, Senior University Counsel at the Office of the General Counsel.

Schoenthaler explained that many of the measures detailed in SB 967, such as using the preponderance of evidence standard for determining sexual misconduct, already constitute University policy. But she also said that SB 967 is likely to fuel the ongoing university discussion about official repercussions for sexual misconduct.

“Is there a direct message between SB 967 and punishment? No, there’s not a direct connection,” Schoenthaler said. “[But] I imagine that, given more attention to this issue on a statewide level, there might be more focused discussion about whether penalties and consequences should change.”

SB 967, signed into law on Sept. 28, is the first measure of its kind in the nation.

 

Contact Madeleine Han at mhan95 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

About Madeleine Han

Seunghwa Madeleine Han '17 is a sophomore at Stanford interested in English, international relations and the intersection of technology and human communication. She is currently a contributing writer for music and a former news desk editor at The Daily. Contact her at mhan95 'at' stanford.edu to find out more.
  • A Stanford Guy

    PLEASE tell me that this doesn’t actually mean we have to explicitly ask for consent verbally every time before we have sex???

    It would be so creepy if in the heat of the moment we have to stop and say, “Is it ok if I have sex with you?”

    Is there anything I’m missing?

  • A Stanford Guy

    Also, I didn’t mean to imply this in my post above, but I’m sure it’s the case:

    I take it that it’s the male’s responsibility to ask for consent (i.e. if neither party granted the other verbal consent but all else was fine, the male is at fault).

    So much for Title IX…

  • ’17

    The Stanford Daily is displaying its masterful editorial skills: a misspelled headline? Not even a check on the headline? Sad…

  • Malena

    Yes. Welcome back to the 20th centure. Sex is now by default wrong and illegal. So is kissing and touching erogenous zones. So is talking dirty!

    Feminism is now a major branch of the Republicans.

  • Malena

    No. The ARP’s panel is composed of extremist feminists (feminazis). That means yes they’ll try to convict all accused males and not females.

    However, Title IX doesn’t specify gender.

    In theory, any male can complain to the ARP about a female kissing him at a party without asking. But males will usually not do this since they don’t feel like sluts for receiving kisses or blowjobs. On the other hand, females who have regret sex (and took the proper precautions to avoid being held accountable of their decisions) can use this system to punish the guys who “didn’t call me after the one night stand”. For example, a girl will meet a random guy or a friend and after a party, she will go to his room, undress, and get into bed with him, touch him, etc. The guy will do the same and they will start having sex.
    Since none of them said “yes I really enthusiastically want to have sex with you”, now it’s a race to see who complains to the ARP first. The one who complains first has a “victim protection” which shields him/her from any investigation or charges for the moment.

    So, in theory, if the guy is disappointed that the girl later had sex with other 2 guys, he can go to the ARP and punish her for ‘unconsensual sex’. However, if the girl is angry that the guy didn’t call her back or he moved on to other girls, she can do the same.

    The system is fair: whoever is most eager for hurting someone else, can do it! Whether you’re male or female, you can always claim rape if you really feel like hurting your sex partner, and if you can do it before he/she does!

  • nickel

    Stanford has it head up it behind when i went there and nothing buts its shoelaces is left.