Author Jennifer Doyle begins the article titled, Campus Sex, Campus Security, with a story of how police were monitoring protesting students on a college campus. The protesting was taking place on the UC Davis campus. For some reason, at a non violent protest police were present. An officer pepper-sprayed seemingly innocent protestors and questions began to explode. An investigation, by Kroll Securities, was launched by the general public to determine why the police were on campus in the first place. The investigation funneled back to Chancellor of the University, Linda Katehi. Her reasoning for bringing officers onto the campus was to prevent off campus persons from entering the protesting camps and violating students sexually. This was a somewhat justified position considering these things happened at the Occupy Oakland rallies. Doyle follows this up with, “the administration’s paranoid rape fantasy mirrors the geometry of the university community itself…” She clearly disagrees with the Chancellor’s reasoning as to why the police were active on the campus during these protests. The author then continues to include a section on a Rolling Stones Magazine article titled, A Rape on Campus. The article was a complete violation of correct journalism. It took the side of the alleged victim and neglected any opinion or interview of the accused. The article was indeed investigated and proved false. It had already gained much publicity and included harsh scenes to help the cause. Doyle adds a few more stories on similar incidents throughout the chapter. She illuminates Title IX and the significance of it. She explains how the law does not present whether the crime is justified or not but instead just asks the question of if the victims rights were violated or not. She believes that Title IX is hurting Universities by aiding in false accusations of sexual assault. She ends the chapter by explaining that students are acclimated to the fear of rape and sexual assault before they arrive on a college campus. She even asks the reader, “What would it mean to de-traumatize the discourse of rape?” In your opinion, is the Chancellor’s excuse as to why police were on campus justified? Or not justified? Do you believe Title IX should be reconstructed to promote justice? Can you answer Doyle’s question of, “What would it mean to de-traumatize the discourse of rape?”
discourse: written or spoken communication or debate
apparatus: a complex structure within an organization or system
traumatize: subject to lasting shock as a result of a disturbing experience or injury
At a school known for having politically active and vibrant students, you would think that they would have freedom to express their opinions based solely on the history of the University. But at the University of California, Santa Cruz, things are beginning to change. The president of the university is clearly tired of bad publicity for the protesting. In a recent case, six students were fed up with the tuition raise, student debt, and what Matthew Renda called, “generational divides.” These students pulled together state-wide hikes for student debt and shut down major highways with barricades to protest their views on the tuition raise. The University cracked down on these students, who now face 30 days in jail, by suspending each of them for a year and a half with no housing or healthcare. Many people think the punishments are too harsh for the students, especially for a school known for activism in it’s history. What is your opinion on the situation? Was the school too harsh, or was the extent of the students’ protest unnecessary? Also, the tuition being protested is nearly half of the in-state tuition for the University of Delaware… why haven’t we seen protests on our own campus? Do you think the protesters were right in causing other people to suffer for their protests by shutting down main roadways?
For being the president of the university at the time, Patrick Harker stressed his opinion blatantly and up front. He wanted a certain group of people to take notice of the things he was concerned over. Harker is resonating with most families looking to send their kids to college within the next few years. He is upfront in saying that the tuition rate is ever rising and the need for change is now. He believed in a radical change of method and teaching. One that would be tailored more towards students’ needs rather than a professor teaching what they want in the way they want to teach it. He also said there is a need to look into reworking the mission of the University to give the student a more “learner-centric” environment rather than having a “teacher-centric” environment. Do you agree with President Harker’s views of a more “learner-centric” environment? Or do you agree with the professors designing their curriculum in their own way; through a “teacher-centric” environment? I can imagine how controversial this article may have been when it was released… given that Harker is no longer the president, what do you think the University of Delaware’s board thought about this article?
thoroughfare: (n.) a passage or way through
draconian:(adj.) rigorous, harsh
pedagogy:(n.) place of instruction, a school or university