Then. Now. Next. A year since UBC's sexual assault policy.

June 5, 2018 10:29 PM

Student journalist Samantha McCabe's (excellent!) long form piece for the Ubyssey "It has been a year since UBC put their first stand-alone sexual assault policy into place, and students are disappointed with the university’s progress. As The Ubyssey investigated sexual misconduct and Policy 131, we discovered numerous problems with the policy's implementation, education and communication. While UBC has cited a reasonably lengthy checklist of things they have done, the holes that remain are the ones that survivors routinely seem to be falling through." (TW: sexual violence)

The Alma Mater Society (AMS - the undergraduate student union) has been a key critic of the university's work on the issue, submitting a report to the Board of Governors detailing results from a 3,000 student survey and a 9 point list of key concerns. They have also begun a review of their own policies on sexualized violence.

McCabe was interviewed about her story on CBC radio [interview starts at 1:26:47]. McCabe covered the launch of the policy for the Ubyssey in April 2017.

posted by chapps (5 comments total)

I'm not exactly surprised, as my experience with various heads of the UBC admin hydra left me with the impression that they were barely aware that students existed, let alone that our experiences and well-being mattered at all.
posted by wakannai at 12:18 AM on June 6, 2018 [2 favorites]

let alone that our experiences and well-being mattered at all.

not if you're an undergrad
posted by philip-random at 12:41 AM on June 6, 2018

I am not sure if UBC is capable of communicating much, given how siloed it is and how all we ever hear about endlessly is new technology to track and grade students, rather than campus wide policies like this. And sometimes their campus wide communication strategies are somewhat problematic: like the mental health week emails and signs that all had the word 'suicide' displayed in bold and in larger letters than what to do if you felt that way.

It also has what seems to be very poor mental health supports for students, so even if you think you're directing them to support systems it turns out that they might have to wait for ages to be seen. I understand they're building a new counselling centre but that seems to me long overdue and possibly a thing that should be going up before new underground parking structures that will probably serve trustee and other important folk more than anyone else.

So very little about this report surprises me sadly.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 12:59 AM on June 6, 2018 [1 favorite]

This jumped out at me from the linked article: "Saunders called Safewalk to escort the boy home but they refused her service, citing a policy that prohibits them from escorting overly intoxicated individuals."

Did they really decide that people too drunk to know where they are don't need to be escorted home safely?
posted by turtlebackriding at 2:48 PM on June 6, 2018 [5 favorites]

The official Safewalk policy says they can refuse drunk people and if you have someone else going to the same place. This is ridiculous because two drunk people with a third person (or even just themselves) can still be at risk. SafeWalk policy

Safewalk operates with a non-intervention policy and our staff reserves the right to refuse service if:

You appear to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol and cannot care for yourself or consciously consent to a ride.
There are concerns about the safety of our personnel or equipment.
You are travelling in a group of 2 or more to the same destination
posted by Chaussette and the Pussy Cats at 12:19 PM on June 8, 2018