Marquette’s Sexual Assault Policy–the Good, the Bad, the Fugly

In a previous post, we mentioned that Marquette’s Sexual Violence policies are insufficient. In the next few weeks, we at The Word Warrior are going to be exploring the policies at other universities to show what Marquette has done right, and most importantly what Marquette can do better.

Unfortunately, Marquette’s Student Conduct policies are not published on their website. Here is a link to where you can download a pdf version of the Marquette Handbook that contains Marquette’s policies. (Probably not the most helpful way to get the word out to students in need of help, huh?)

Notice that Marquette’s policies on sexual assault are divided into two sections: 9 paragraphs on pages 201-202 and two paragraphs in the “Special Circumstances” section on page 225.11 paragraphs does seem like a lot of information . . . at first. However, in terms of content, Marquette’s published policies are lacking. For example, Marquette outlines what constitutes sexual assault, explains what legal consent entails, mentions date rape specifically, and also talks about stalking and other types of dating violence that might occur. This is all fine. But what is missing?

Let us compare Marquette’s 11 paragraphs with Boston College’s 28 paragraphs. Boston College explains in greater detail what constitutes rape. For example, unlike Marquette, BC mentions “emotional coercion” as a means of sexual assault, outlines what “sexual intercourse” is, and includes “voyeurism” and “exposure” under the scope of its sexual violence policies. Unlike Marquette, BC mentions Massachusetts’ sentencing policies for rape (perhaps a good deterrent?) . Also, BC states specifically that their policy does not only cover students, but anybody on their campus. Thus, if a student from another university is assaulted on BC’s campus, BC’s policy says that BC can assist the victim. (I am curious if Marquette would be willing to do that, even if it’s not in their policy . . . hmmmm )

Where the differences are the most significant, however, is in the description of how the university should respond and what the victim’s options are. Marquette merely lists several organizations that might be helpful. (And many of these organizations, such as HAVEN or the Counseling Center are perfectly competent organizations.) However, there are no contact numbers given within the policy, no description of who would be answering the phone, or in what ways the victim can be helped.

Boston College, however, has a “Coordinated University Response System” and gives phone numbers (including a 24-hour helpline that people can call anonymously) and a list of 9 things that the university can do to help the student. There are more detailed descriptions of what both the internal and external judicial processes are, and how the university is willing to help out the student. There is also advice about what should be done to preserve evidence, which is vital if the victim wants to press charges.

Most importantly, however, BC makes it clear that they have University Police Officers who are trained to deal with sexual assault. It is also in their policy that, for female victims, a female officer will be present during the investigation. Marquette University victims are told to contact Public Safety, but are given no assurance that the officer assigned to their case has experience with sexual violence issues, and there is no published policy that would have female officers present. I wonder if having these established policies might make victims feel safer and more likely to step forward.I encourage everyone to explore these policies in detail and to throw in any suggestions you have for how Marquette could improve their published policies on sexual violence.

11 paragraphs doesn’t seem like so much now, does it?