Vice President’s Email Causes Student Discontent
Content Warning: Discussions of sexual assault
In an email on Oct. 5 that has been publicly criticized by Honor Council, SHARE advocates, and other students for its handling of accountability and sexual misconduct, Vice President for Student Life Dr. Karnell McConnell-Black condemned student responses to an alleged instance of attempted sexual assault. Titled “Important Communication & Follow Up Regarding Campus Rumors and Conduct,” the email discussed instances of harassment against two sophomore students alleged to have tampered with drinks at an off-campus party.
“We must collectively condemn conduct that attempts to cause others to be socially ostracized, intimidated, harassed, bullied or excluded based on speculation and rumor,” Dr. McConnell-Black said.
“The Honor Council would like to clarify that the definition of the Honor Principle that was used to justify scolding the student body [in McConnell-Black’s email] is not what the Honor Council and other accountability groups uphold. The Honor Principle is purposefully open-ended, undefined, and supposed to fit within the framework of each individual Reedie’s moral compass; it is up to each community member to create their own definition.”
Dr. McConell-Black urged students not to believe everything they may hear from potential survivors of sexual assault without considering both sides of the issue, asserting that “We can hold multiple truths– we can abhor and condemn certain ills in society and simultaneously be fair-minded, refrain from assuming wrongdoing, and address conflict in a collegial and respectful manner.” He went on to express his feeling that members of the community were not acting to the collegial standard he would expect of Reed students.
Dr. McConnell-Black warned that “Violations of policy, including any form of retaliation, or attempts to undermine our shared principles and community norms, will not be tolerated,” although it is unclear which specific policies this refers to. He further said, “Misconduct will be met with appropriate action. Those found responsible will face educational interventions and sanctions, such as immediate campus exclusions, suspension and/or expulsion.” It is unclear by what process such sanctions would take place; the only person with the authority to impose “immediate” punishments upon students without first going through a Judicial Board or Title IX process is President Audrey Bilger.
The Quest reached out to Dr. McConnell-Black with questions about the email, but as of publishing, he had provided no response.
Reed is defined by its student-led accountability processes. The majority of issues of misconduct on campus are handled by one of three student-led accountability groups: Restorative Justice Coalition, Honor Council, and the Judicial Board (J-Board). Of the three, J-Board is the only one that discloses its cases to the college, and is the only body involved in administering official sanctions on behalf of the college. After J-Board hears a case, they make a recommendation regarding discipline to the Vice President for Student Life, Dr. McConnell-Black, who ultimately makes a final ruling on the case.
Reed’s Discriminatory Harassment and Sexual Misconduct (DHSM) policy does prohibit stalking and harassment regardless of motivation, but DHSM cases are also adjudicated by J-Board via the same processes. Sexual misconduct violations of DHSM in specific are dealt with by the Sexual Misconduct Board, of which everyone on student J-Board is a member (while discriminatory harassment violations are dealt with by J-Board). Under the DHSM, there cannot be discipline until a formal complaint has been heard by the appropriate body. Even Title IX cases at Reed involve students; if someone is found responsible for violating Title IX policy, at least one student member of the Sexual Misconduct Board must be consulted by the Vice President for Student Life about sanctions, though the final ruling ultimately does fall to Dr. McConnell-Black.
As Reed’s website puts it, “In a system based on self-governance, you are the enforcement mechanism: it is your responsibility, as a member of the Reed community, both to think about how your actions affect others and to hold other people accountable for their actions.”
But Dr. McConnell-Black tells a different story. “Plainly put,” he says, “it is unacceptable to take matters into our own hands based on speculation, when we have all agreed to be governed by the Honor Principle, to live with integrity in doing so, to suspend judgment without a full understanding from all perspectives, or take actions that cause harm to others.”
“SHARE envisions a supportive environment for survivors, but the example the administration has set with that email is not contributing to creating such an environment.”
In a letter to the student body, Honor Council criticized Dr. McConnell-Black’s mischaracterization of the Honor Principle. “The Honor Council would like to clarify that the definition of the Honor Principle that was used to justify scolding the student body [in McConnell-Black’s email] is not what the Honor Council and other accountability groups uphold. The Honor Principle is purposefully open-ended, undefined, and supposed to fit within the framework of each individual Reedie’s moral compass; it is up to each community member to create their own definition,” wrote Honor Council. McConnell-Black’s email has also been condemned by members of the community for its treatment of the topic of sexual abuse.
“I was disappointed at the lack of care shown towards survivors in that email,” said Aditya Gadkari, a Sexual Health, Advocacy & Relationship Education (SHARE) advocate whom the Quest spoke with about the email.
Gadkari and Annika Haraikawa, another SHARE advocate, were dismayed that Dr. McConnell-Black did not mention that the harassment was related to an alleged case of sexual misconduct, and that he did not direct survivors to available resources.
“The email didn’t even really consider survivors,” said Haraikawa.
The SHARE advocates were also dismayed by the importance the email placed upon the lack of official reports made to the college. They said that it’s not uncommon for survivors to wait to file official reports or to not file them at all. Not only does it take time for survivors to process their trauma, but official adjudication processes are often weeks or months long and necessitate that survivors recount nitty-gritty details of their trauma to a fact-finding body — something that is very emotionally taxing.
In contrast, Dr. McConnell-Black’s email stressed that “there have been no formal complaints made about any alleged incident of drink tampering, or any other allegedly inappropriate conduct, at the party. To date, the college has no evidence that validates the behaviors alleged through the rumor mill.”
Gadkari said, “The assertion that no survivors have come forward, while important to the context of what’s happening, also made it seem like the lack of any survivors coming forward was a problem.” They added that “the way that the lack of report was framed made it seem almost as if it was antagonizing survivors for not coming forward.”
Gadkari and Haraikawa said that they felt the email was not supportive of survivors, and felt that there was much more that the college could do to support them. “SHARE envisions a supportive environment for survivors, but the example the administration has set with that email is not contributing to creating such an environment,” Haraikawa said.
SHARE was founded by Reed students who felt that the college was not doing enough to deal with sexual harassment and support survivors. Like Honor Council and Restorative Justice Coalition, SHARE is completely confidential — advocates are legally not allowed to disclose any information about people who talk to them to anyone else, including to the college, except in cases of child or elder abuse.
Gadkari said that confidentiality is a big part of “maintaining the survivor’s power, the survivor’s autonomy for their story.”
Both SHARE advocates emphasized the importance of centering survivors in their work, and agreed that the email failed at doing so. But they also said that the student body needs to do better.
“There have been a lot of people who have done things with good intentions, but they’re not necessarily things that survivors asked them to do, but things that everybody was doing for the survivors,” said Gadkari. “While it came from a good place, even that response itself leads to a propagation of harm for survivors, because of them losing control over their stories.”
Dr. McConell-Black’s communication to the student body ended by assuring readers that he “will continue to work to ensure that the trust that you [the student body] have placed in me and my position is carried out to its fullest extent to create a community that is welcoming, safe, and abides by the principles and policies that provide a guidepost for all of our behaviors and interactions with each other.” The Quest specifically reached out to Dr. McConnell-Black seeking a response to the SHARE advocate’s concerns that his email did not represent a safe environment for survivors. As of publishing, he had not responded to the Quest.
Gadkari wanted to stress that, “If there are survivors out there who are reading this, know that SHARE advocates are confidential, that coming to us is not making a report, coming to us is not locking yourself into any kind of choice. All it is doing is having somebody listen to whatever you might have to say and having people who might be able to point you to resources that are useful.”