I think that Colette Sims’ column “Stand Against Assault” (Oct. 25), while well intended, falls short of its ideal of fomenting change on the Washington University campus. Sure, activists can feel confident that they are definitely “doing something” to “raise awareness” about the problem of rape on campus. After all, campus-wide solidarity days and purple ribbons are visible symbols of action. Yet these gestures are not enough; something is missing in such an approach.
The problem to be addressed with rape is not rape itself but the conditions that are present prior to rape’s occurrence. Yes, lofty ideals of “awareness” are wonderful, but we all know that (many of) the same people who put on purple ribbons in the morning-generally because their friends do-go to depersonalized, alcohol-laden parties that night, where conditions are conducive to rape. That’s the problem I find with purple ribbons, flyers, and other handouts: they’re merely symbolic. Wearing a purple ribbon does not stop rape. Rape is personal and occurs when individuals are not in control of themselves or the situation they’re in. (For my purposes I’m disregarding “fringe cases,” those that could be considered either consensual or rape, depending upon which party is asked.) Sims briefly mentions the alcohol culture behind rape, but I think she underestimates its importance in influencing action. Action is what truly matters. One’s set of beliefs is measured in terms of his or her actions, not high-minded statements.
Additionally, I find Sims’ statement that 86 percent of rape victims “knew the perpetrator” to be misleading. Statistics can show many things, depending upon how questions are asked. The term “knowing the perpetrator” doesn’t necessarily mean that (if you’re a female) your guy friends are going to rape you. Generally, people you don’t know so well, with whom you feel an alcohol-induced false sense of familiarity, are those most likely to make unwelcome advances or commit the act of rape. The feeling that one knows someone else is highly subjective. Psychological studies have shown that the more often you see someone, the greater the corresponding feeling that you “know” them. Some guy you see in the hallway, for instance, on the way to the shower every morning may become familiar to you, despite the fact that you might never have had a real conversation with him. You may even wave to him as you pass after a while, just because his face is familiar. That false sense of “knowing” someone occurs often, and it’s not a problem until alcohol or other perception-altering drugs enter the picture.
Rape is a universal problem occurring across political boundary lines. One can be liberal, conservative, or anywhere on the continuum in between in matters of politics and personal beliefs yet still drink and take part in the culture that supports rape. I’d like to argue that the hands-off approach to alcohol on the WU campus, a hallmark of the liberal influences that pervade the university, contributes greatly to alcohol consumption and, in turn, the incidence of rape. There is a difference between being a conservative and taking a conservative attitude towards things like alcohol. Conservatism is equated with prudish, frumpy naysayers-yet a conservative stance on alcohol is not the same thing at all. I am not a conservative by any means, yet I recognize the value of a conservative approach in many instances. Alcohol is, after all, illegal for the majority of students living on campus. My point is that even slightly more conservative alcohol policies would help curb the occurrence of rape-related problems more than ribbons and idealistic words will.
Lately, however, while reading the paper, I’ve noted the backlash against Bernell Dorrough’s call for halting the sale of cigarettes on campus. Many of WU’s enlightened students have, in splendid reactionary fashion, labeled him paternalistic and fascist. I’m sure similar criticism could be leveled against me for my statements. The solutions others have proposed in lieu of tougher tobacco policies could likewise cover alcohol. Self-restraint and self-control, the epitome of individualistic ideals, seem like they might work. Yet I doubt the efficacy of these “solutions” to smoking and I don’t think they would be of much use regarding alcohol.
Some would say that at least students are illegally drinking and being raped by people who live on campus, as opposed to scary people from surrounding neighborhoods. That, too, is a point, yet it sidesteps the issue of peer rape. I doubt that purple ribbons, individual restraint, and lofty ideals can cause change more effectively than simply reducing tolerance of alcohol on campus.