When fraternity pledges marched through Yale’s campus earlier this academic year chanting “No means yes!”, their parade elicited mixed reactions.  Such raunchy demonstrations have come to be almost expected by the student body, causing many to be desensitized and to write off such events as dumb jokes that don’t actually represent male opinion, but that are instead meant purely for attention.  Others admit the occasions to be obnoxious, but hardly seemed phased beyond being slightly annoyed.

However, some students have had enough of these demonstrations, calling them offensive and part of a “long trend of public sexual harassment”.  About sixteen of such students and recent graduates filed a complaint that, according to the recent New York Times piece, “accus[es] the university of violating Title XI, the federal gender-equality law, by failing to eliminate a hostile sexual environment on campus”.  The article went on to report that the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights was investigating the complaint, which alleges a range of offenses against women occurring over the past seven years.

The Yale administration has, of course, voiced its intolerance for sexual misconduct in response to the complaint, and announced the creation of a new committee meant to streamline the disciplinary process.  And, as the Times points out, even Vice President Biden has encouraged colleges to do more to prevent sexual violence.

So what more could college administrations do?

I cannot help but think back to this past October (the same month of the “No means yes!” parade) when the Yale student body received their annual “it’s-Halloween-be-safe” email from the Sexual Harassment and Assault Resources & Education Center.  The email encouraged students to have “glorious consensual sex”.  The email read as follows:

A few years ago when we introduced the idea that consensual sex could be glorious, it seems that was a surprise to many. Consensual sex is having the sex you want, something you can say “yes” to, not something you’re afraid to say “no” to. Glorious consensual sex is something given, not taken, something shared not endured: something that makes you smile the next day, not something that hurts psychologically, emotionally or physically.

The SHARE Center’s email only adds fuel to the allegations currently being investigated.  We can legitimately believe that college administrators try to keep student well-being at the forefront of their administrative decisions.  And, if we read between the lines, we can understand their email as being their way of reminding students about the importance of full consent in sex, and to stay away from sex that is forced or hurtful (a worthy and necessary message, to be sure).  And yet, despite their presumably good intentions, they continue to be way off the mark.  Besides the email’s laughable choice of vocabulary, it essentially reinforces the sexually libertine norms of campus culture by endorsing the idea that any type of consensual sexual activity can be good – even “glorious”!

It should not be so difficult for university personnel (and everyone else) to see the connection between the promotion of “glorious consensual sex” and the type of raunchy male behavior that pervades Yale’s campus.   This email is just one example of the larger belief that anything goes in matters of sexuality so long as there is consent.  But when “anything goes”, we become hard-pressed to find a reason why public displays of raunchy behavior and sentiments are so offensive.  Holding consent up as the only “moral” standard in matters of sex makes for a very fuzzy line in this case between free speech and misconduct.

The fact is that when the permissibility of sexual acts is based solely on consent, you’re bound to have trouble.  According to the CDC, almost half of all new cases of sexually transmitted infections each year occur among those in their late teens and early twenties – largely during the college years.  And with multiple studies in recent years showing the connection between premarital sex and depression, it seems that seriously considering the effect of casual sex on one’s physical and emotional health certainly points toward the benefit of abstaining.  While marriage is only a distant thought to most college co-eds, the majority of young men and women do aspire to be married some day.  However, with one’s risk of future marital instability increasing with each sexual partner one has before marriage, premarital sex (and even multiple sexually-active, though committed, relationships) only puts young people at a disadvantage for their aspiration to future marital stability and happiness.  Finally, while the moral standard on most college campuses is a relativistic standard dictated by one’s subjective judgment, we would be foolish not to consider the ethics involved.  If we want to talk candidly about casual sex, we need to acknowledge that it is naturally selfish and self-serving, with consent merely a mutual recognition of each individual’s desire to satisfy their sexual urge through the other person.  In an age where we are encouraged to indulge ourselves, the selfishness of casual sex may not seem like such a big problem.  However, casual sex is unlike other lesser selfish acts because of the intimate way it uses the other person to derive personal satisfaction.

If faced with so many disadvantages in any other matter, the decision would be simple to choose the path that promises health, happiness, and personal integrity.  So why is it that in matters of sex, responsible and reasonable decision-making goes out the door?

When college administrators establish consent as the standard for the permissibility of sexual acts without considering the very important factors just described, they are essentially paving the way for sex to continue to be treated casually, irresponsibly, and even offensively on campus.  This is not to blame Yale administrators for the abhorrent behavior of those young pledges and the others whose offenses are listed in the complaint.  They are responsible for their decisions and culpable for their actions.  However, in pursuing a remedy to the heinous behaviors regularly enacted on campuses, we must not overlook the connection between the sexual standard set by college administrators and the culture cultivated among the student body.

Luckily, at a number of other campuses, such consideration is being paid.  At Princeton University, the freshman orientation play Sex on a Saturday Night was improved gradually over the course of a few years in order to incorporate a believable abstinent character to balance out the other more provocative and promiscuous characters.  And at the University of Pittsburgh, Anscombe Society students are now in conversation with staff and students active in health services to discuss how to better incorporate the benefits of abstinence into their programming and offerings.  Such effort and initiative on the part of university staff and administrators to re-evaluate and improve their programs goes a long way not only in regards to student health and decision-making, but also in regards to a better relationship forged between students and university staff.  Alumni and parents, too, who are often appalled at sexual “health” programming, begin to hold the university in higher esteem.

In addition to creating a new disciplinary committee, Yale administrators would do well to follow these examples.  If they are sincere about their professed intolerance of sexual misconduct, they must reconsider the messages they send through their policies, programs, and events, and the type of sexual culture they want to be abetting on campus.

Filed under: College, Sexual Integrity, Sexuality