Gettysburg College: Unjust Sexual Misconduct Policy
After more than a year of public pressure from FIRE, Gettysburg College amended its controversial Sexual Misconduct Policy. Gettysburg students are now free from the draconian policy, which failed to distinguish between an innocent, spontaneous hug and forcible rape. The school's old Sexual Misconduct Policy infringed on students' rights to due process and fundamental fairness. Despite months of agreeing to undertake an administrative review and revision of the Sexual Misconduct Policy, Gettysburg continued to maintain it. In response, FIRE added Gettysburg to its Red Alert list, where FIRE highlights the "worst of the worst" offenders against liberty on campus. In light of the policy change, Gettysburg was removed from FIRE's Red Alert list. The original policy's broad definition of sexual interaction included not only sex acts but also "brushing, touching, grabbing, pinching, patting, hugging, and kissing," drawing no distinction between innocent hugging and sex crimes. The revised policy has eliminated the language equating rape with mere hugging. Instead, it prohibits "[s]exual misconduct, including sexual assault, [which] is defined as deliberate physical contact of a sexual nature without the other person's consent."
"Victory for Fundamental Fairness at Gettysburg College," FIRE Press Release, August 22, 2007: After more than a year of public pressure from FIRE, Gettysburg College has amended its controversial Sexual Misconduct Policy. Gettysburg students are finally free from the draconian policy, which failed to distinguish between an innocent, spontaneous hug and forcible rape. In response to the school’s positive changes in the policy, FIRE has removed Gettysburg from its Red Alert list.
"FIRE in ‘The Boston Globe’," May 23, 2006:
FIRE’s exposure of the absurd sexual misconduct policy in force at Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania has attracted the notice of columnist Cathy Young of The Boston Globe and Reason magazine. In her Monday Globe column, Young skewers the Gettysburg policy that puts an unauthorized hug on a spectrum with sexual assault, observing, as did FIRE, that “because it is impossible to enforce such a policy consistently, it will inevitably be enforced in arbitrary ways. If everyone violates the rules at one time or another, anyone is a potential target for punishment.”
"Gettysburg College: Hug at Your Own Risk," FIRE Press Release, May 11, 2006: Today, FIRE is publicly challenging Gettysburg College's Sexual Misconduct Policy, a policy so broad in scope that it draws no distinction between innocent behavior and sexual assault. Under the policy, even the most common affectionate behavior could qualify as "sexual misconduct"-- a charge with potentially life-altering consequences. FIRE is calling upon Gettysburg to safeguard the due process rights of its students by repealing this draconian policy.
"Colleges assume unchecked power in sexual consent policies," Greg Lukianoff, Daily Journal, June 21, 2006: This rule effectively makes every student — man, woman, married or single — guilty of sexual misconduct. Does anyone get verbal consent to hug their friends and then continue to ask for it the entire hug? Should every time you tap someone on the shoulder be a violation of a university policy? Gettysburg’s rule does not reflect reality, and so it criminalizes perfectly normal intimate and even merely affectionate interaction.
"The Hug Police Invade Higher Education," Allison Kasic, Human Events, June 9, 2006: The controversial policy, being challenged by the free speech watch-dog group the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), sets the parameters for acceptable sexual contact. There needs to be consent, which it defines as “the act of willingly and verbally agreeing to engage in specific sexual conduct. If either person at any point in a sexual encounter does not give continuing and active consent, all sexual contact must cease, even if consent was given earlier.” Sexual interaction includes a wide variety of activities including “brushing,” “patting,” “kissing,” and -- gasp! -- “hugging.”
"On campus, an absurd overregulation of sexual conduct," Cathy Young, The Boston Globe, May 22, 2006: The worthy goal of rape prevention has been twisted into a utopian attempt to remake human sexuality -- in an image that is not particularly attractive.
"College's Sexual Misconduct Policy under FIRE," Steve Marroni, The Evening Sun, May 13, 2006: FIRE says the issue of consent is over the top in the policy and it does not distinguish a hug and sexual contact. "With a policy so broad, it makes each student potentially liable and leaves punishment at the whim of the administration," said Greg Lukianoff, FIRE president. "That's not fair. That's not just."
