These two articles were published today (Nov 4, 2013) in the Vancouver Sun and The Province, respectively.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/commerce+students+reject+hire+assault+counsellor/9119883/story.html
Why do you think Commerce Undergraduate Society (CUS) recommended funding this position? Was that the right decision by CUS and Sauder leadership?
Why do you think the CUS student body rejected this recommendation so resoundingly? Are they callous? Misogynistic? Ignorant? Boorish? Or perhaps do they think this is a larger university issue that should not single out CUS to pay for what they consider to be a larger issue?
Does the fact that CUS leaders organized and led the infamous Frosh Week rape chant and also the equally offensive “Pochahontas” chant affect your view on whether Sauder or CUS should be punished by being “asked” to fund a sexual assault consellor? Should this be considered “punishment”?
What if the resolution was to fund someone to do prevention education instead of survivor support? How does that affect your opinion, and might that be more “palatable” for CUS to approve?
And most importantly, given the prevalence of sexual assault in society as well as on campus (not just the string of stranger sexual assaults perpetrated most probably by a single predator, but also the much larger issues of non-consensual sexual contact in acquaintance, dating and employment relationships, and the mental health aftermath that students victimized as children have to deal with), what kinds of integrated policies, procedures, services and responses are most appropriate for the UBC community at-large? And how might students, staff, faculty and others in the UBC community work together to achieve meaningful change?
Where to from here?
