“Well-Intentioned in Some of the Most Dangerous Ways”: Examining Bill-132 and the Subsequent Formation of Ontarian University Sexual Assault Policies
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Journal for Social Thought 5(1) • March 2021 “Well-intentioned in some of the most dangerous ways”: Examining Bill-132 and the subsequent formation of Ontarian university sexual assault policies Maddie Brockbank McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada [email protected] The purpose of this critical feminist review is to discuss the enactment of Bill 132, The Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act, which was passed in March 2016 by the Government of Ontario. First, this paper will provide a general overview of the sociopolitical context surrounding the development of an action plan to address sexual assault on Ontario university campuses. Second, this discussion will outline the central tenets of Schedule 3 of Bill 132, including its scope, intentions, and goals. Last, Schedule 3 will be critically examined to demonstrate how its limitations have maintained adverse outcomes for students attending post-secondary institutions in Ontario. Namely, Schedule 3 of Bill 132 will be critiqued through exploration of the following themes: (1) the lack of universality and standardization of sexual assault policies on post-secondary campuses, (2) the institutionalization of responses to sexual violence, and (3) the exclusion and silencing of student voices in forming policy responses to sexual violence. Examples from existing sexual violence policies will be included to ground this discussion. This review will conclude with a brief consideration of the implications of these critiques on the development and enactment of sexual assault policies in Ontario. KEYWORDS: Social policy; Sexual assault; Ontario; Post-secondary Introduction (2006) aptly suggests, “much of the political struggle in any area is a contest over the choice of meaning of core Providing Context of the Problem of Sexual concepts” (p. 867), with these core concepts largely Violence in Ontario being defined by those who maintain institutionalized power. n Canada, the responsibilities for authoring and en- acting social policies are divided among different Since his election, Doug Ford, the current premier Ilevels of government, with each branch maintain- of Ontario, has facilitated significant cuts to essen- ing its own jurisdiction over a myriad of social con- tial social services, including freezing funding boosts texts, which Westhues (2006) refers to as a “divided promised by the Liberal government to Ontario sex- sovereignty” (p.11). In terms of where policy commu- ual assault centres that intended to shorten waitlists nities should direct their mobilizing efforts, it is largely through the hiring of more counselors, bolstering crisis dependent on which level of government maintains services, and expanding public education programs control over policies related to particular social issues for sexual violence prevention (Fitzpatrick, 2019). The (Westhues, 2006). Part of the process of lobbying to Ontario government’s shifts toward neoliberalism un- governments for policy shifts involves what McKeen der Ford’s leadership maintain severe implications for (2006) describes as discursive politics, where “choice what Smith (2008) identifies as “feminist interventions” of a discourse can be an important political strategy (p. 132). Feminist organizing around acknowledging, that either makes space or closes space for particular reducing, and eliminating the prevalence of violence ideas and political voices” (p. 867). The political orien- against women is usually grassroots and radicalized tation of the Canadian government contributes to this through anti-oppressive and post-structural orienta- process; appeals to federal and provincial governments tions; however, sexual assault centres and other agen- for social policy shifts would be significantly shaped by cies partaking in feminist organizing often “collabo- whether the government in power is left leaning (e.g. rate with the very structures they [seek] to transform” Liberal) or right-wing (e.g. Conservative), specifically (Beres, Crow, & Gotell, 2009, p. 139) in order to se- when seeking policy changes around funding for social cure funding, maintain a positive community reputa- services (Hancock, Mooney, & Neal, 2012). As McKeen tion, and sustain cordial relations with public services https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/jst/index 1 Journal for Social Thought 5(1) • March 2021 and government. This process risks depoliticizing anti- dedicated to sexual violence intervention and preven- violence movements and deterring political actors from tion, including the absence of formal and specific sexual advocating for policy changes. assault policies, facilitated rape culture on university Policy solutions to the issue of sexual violence campuses and allowed university administration to be in Ontario have been predominantly shared between unaccountable for sexual assaults (MacKenzie, 2019). the provincial government and the academic post- Mathieu and Poisson’s (2014) ground-breaking in- secondary institutions they fund. Increased focus has vestigation, coupled with mounting mobilizing efforts been dedicated to the issue of sexual assault on post- spearheaded by the Ontario Women’s Directorate and secondary campuses, in particular due to heightened the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres, largely and alarming rates of violence occurring on univer- informed a campaign launched by Kathleen Wynne’s sity grounds and/or involving university personnel Government of Ontario in 2015, entitled “It’s Never (MacKenzie, 2019). Numerous studies have reported Okay: An Action Plan to Stop Sexual Violence and that one in four women will experience an attempted Harassment” (Bill 132, 2016; Patel & Roesch, 2018; or completed sexual assault while attending a post- Choise, 2018; Lopes-Baker, McDonald, Schissler, & secondary institution (Lee & Wong, 2019; Koss, Gidycz, Pirone, 2017). One section in this action plan was & Wisniewski, 1987; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998; Fisher, dedicated to “safer campuses” and promised the devel- 2000; Humphrey & White, 2000; “Sexual Violence on opment and implementation of “legislation to require Campus,” 2015). There has been a documented discrep- colleges and universities to adopt a sexual assault pol- ancy between the number of self-reported experiences icy, developed with significant input from students, of sexual assault in post-secondary settings and the and renewed – with student involvement – every four numbers universities and colleges have reported due years” (“It’s Never Okay,” 2015, p.27). Additionally, the to the absence of formal policies put in place, barri- action plan pledged to improve procedural response ers to survivors accessing services and supports, and protocols, invest in sexual violence prevention training troubling responses to disclosures from university ad- and programming, broaden supports and services for ministration and formal authorities when survivors survivors, and establish requirements for universities are directed to contact local police (MacKenzie, 2018). and colleges to publish statistics on reported assaults Indeed, one in five sexual assault claims are deemed on their respective campuses (“It’s Never Okay,” 2015; “baseless” by police in Canada, with 70% of sexual Patel & Roesch, 2018). This campaign and its various assault cases incorrectly being classified by police as propositions subsequently formulated Bill 132. “unfounded” in Hamilton alone (“Our Turn,” 2017, p.17; O’Reilly, 2018). In the post-secondary context, Purpose McMaster University reported a mere eight sexual as- The purpose of this review is to consolidate emerg- saults between 2009 and 2013 as they were not required ing literature on the development, enactment, and by law to record or report this data to the provincial evaluation of sexual violence policies on Ontarian government (Sawa, 2015). post-secondary campuses under the requirements of A revelatory investigation published by the Toronto Schedule 3 of Bill 132. While sexual violence on post- Star in 2014 emphasized these troubling realities secondary campuses is a thoroughly documented and through the completion of a systematic review of uni- researched topic, the recency of Bill 132 and its require- versities’ policy responses to sexual assault. Through in- ments for post-secondary institutions to author and terviews with survivors, the investigation documented implement their own standalone sexual violence poli- numerous adverse experiences of disclosing sexual vi- cies has limited available scholarship on the impacts of olence to university administration, which resulted in sexual violence policy in the Canadian post-secondary mental health concerns, suicidality, and withdrawal context (Tjaden et al, 1998; Black et al, 2011; “Sexual from the university in some cases (Mathieu & Pois- Violence on Campus,” 2015; MacKenzie, 2018; MacKen- son, 2014). Mathieu and Poisson (2014) also discussed zie, 2019; Patel & Roesch, 2018). This discussion intends that repeated attempts made by student survivors and to provide an introductory and preliminary consider- local sexual assault centres to advocate for broader pol- ation of how the enactment of Schedule 3 of Bill 132 icy changes, which included reports, research projects, has not necessarily facilitated adequate responses to protests, and media interviews with political actors, the issue of sexual violence on post-secondary cam- were met with resistance from university administra- puses due to (1) discrepancies between and among tion. The findings indicated that a lack of resources standalone policies, thus