Courtesy of Ethan Davis
Recently, the university has altered punishments placed upon the Sigma Chi fraternity for misogynistic comments made during its annual Derby Days event. The new terms allow Sigma Chi more freedom than originally granted on the grounds that they must take up a sexual harassment education agenda for this semester. Most people seem content with this change, even the students who originally raised the issue; however, I am fairly skeptical.
According to the United States Department of Justice, the rate of sexual harassment for women 12 years of age and older declined 64 percent from 1995 to 2005. This statistic at the very least demonstrates that opening a dialogue about the topic has made people more aware and responsive to sexual harassment and its effects. My concern lies in that there is an extreme difference between having genuine discussions about the dignity of humans and force-feeding educational materials to people who are ultimately disinterested.
Speaking from my own encounters with students regarding such issues, people simply do not think they are perpetrators of what is defined as sexual harassment. If any of the Sigma Chi speakers who made the comments had been taken aside before the incident occurred and asked, “Would you sexually harass a female?” I have no doubt their answer would have been an emphatic “No!”
And that is the problem.
People do not fully understand exactly what makes one legally liable under Title IX obligations, despite numerous attempts of training and education. The problem with standard education materials is that they provide absolutely no connection to someone examining them. Reading a fictional scenario where two people with fictional-sounding names participate in fictional activities does not prompt anyone to engage in introspection or make the broader connections necessary for effective change. Such materials are frequently counterintuitive because they claim that everything should be plainly and openly stated, an excellent policy aside from the fact that large amounts, if not a majority, of human communication is nonverbal.
Besides that, such materials are growing more and more frequent, which I can certainly say has caused me to become desensitized to the severity of the issue, and I imagine others feel the same. It is much like the lecture your parents gave so many times that you can practically quote it: You have heard it too much, and it is no longer effective.
The solution to people not listening is not to say more and more or talk louder and louder; it is to change the discussion, to say something different, to make people realize that this issue affects them.
I do not doubt that the Sigma Chi members regret their comments or that the university truly believes this new course of action has great potential, and I am not advocating a return to the original conditions of the punishment. Instead, I simply believe the resources available will not be useful.
Do I think the Greek system can be pulled out of its stereotypical reputation for insensitivity? Absolutely. I believe hard work involving genuine discussion and sincerity for the topic can make long, meaningful strides toward eradicating sexual harassment for good. Do I believe the new Sigma Chi terms will lead to that? Absolutely not.
Ethan Davis is a junior philosophy and English double major from Laurel.
