Sexual harassment is something which I take very seriously. I do not doubt the shockingly high figures on how many Oxford students have been victims of harassment. The number of people I know personally who have been victims of this sort of behaviour is substantial, and those are only the occurrences which I know about.
I cannot understand the furore that a motion aimed at preventing people from abusing the bodies of others has caused. Anyone who argues that such motions aren’t necessary because we live in a society which is fairly gender
equal does not understand the social nuances that still leave women at far greater risk of assault than men.
The difficulties that women face solely because they are women are all too real. Rape culture exists. Witness the Steubenville rapists, where CNN gave more consideration to the ruined lives of the perpetrators in a manner that appeared, quite frankly, sympathetic to rapists. This is the society we live in.
Given that incidences of harassment that go unreported completely dwarf the number of false claims, the false accusation criticism is practically unjustified. The chances of someone making a false claim are minute, and too often this is used to blur the issue.
Furthermore, that the college is mandated to take strict action against would-be harassers is likely to ensure that victims no longer suffer in silence. Indeed, it may even make those who, whilst perhaps not intent on intrusive behaviour, are tempted by actions which could be construed as genuinely threatening, pause for thought.
Although the motion is laudable, it has to be said that not all concerns should be considered as being rooted in misogyny. There are valid questions about whether a zero tolerance policy of the sort that Wadham has passed contravenes principles of justice that we consider to be important.
Criticising a feminist policy is often unfairly taken to be the equivalent of rejecting feminism as a whole. Sarah Pine, who proposed the motion, rebuked the Wadham SU president for personally opposing it on the grounds that “rejecting any way for coping with assault and harassment protects a system in which abuse and assault are common experiences.” It is tacitly admitted, however, that not all ways of minimising the risk of assault will be accepted.
Most perpetrators of sexual crimes are male. Were we to ban male students from Oxford altogether, I have no doubt that the University would be far safer for women. I also have no doubt that this is not what Pine, or any other feminist, wants. Like the SU president, those behind the motion know that they have to draw lines somewhere. The difference is one of degree.
We live in a deeply unequal world. The sexual harassment motion is vital because there is an uneven power dynamic between abused and abuser that requires drastic actions for victims to feel safe.
Yet this inevitably needs to be balanced with other concerns about justice. It is true that sometimes unequal treatment is necessary to ensure everyone ultimately has equal rights. However, there are always going to be some red lines; policies that, whilst guaranteed to reduce the risk of sexual harassment, will never be instituted because they violate some right that we consider important. This is the fear that the Wadham SU president had on a personal level about the way this policy demolishes the presumption of innocence before proof of guilt.
Rather, we have to be mindful that there may be values that we consider intrinsically important that cannot be sacrificed for the sake of any movement.
I do not advocate not making important social changes because the transition may be painful for privileged groups. What I have in mind is the values that are crucial for everyone to live in society securely.
As much as I sympathise with the motion, I could not have supported it in good conscience if we were not allowed to question whether it violates other values that are equally important.
