![\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Theodor_von_Holst_-_Othello_and_Desdemona_-_1986.124.5_-_Yale_University_Art_Gallery.jpg\"](\"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/9\/9f\/Theodor_von_Holst_-_Othello_and_Desdemona_-_1986.124.5_-_Yale_University_Art_Gallery.jpg\")
<\/h3>\nThe Washington Examiner<\/i><\/b> recently published a piece<\/b><\/a> on the recent controversy over the failure of administrators at conservative Catholic colleges to respond to victims of sexual assault. <\/b><\/h3>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
The main contention of its author Jeremiah Poff (a current student at Franciscan University of Steubenville) is that such \u201cdevoutly Catholic institutions\u201d have not neglected to address the problem of sexual assault, but are rather \u201con the front lines of preventing such behaviors.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
In abstract, his argument is rather straightforward:<\/span><\/p>\nP1 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Sexual assaults occur because of liberalized views of sexuality.<\/b><\/p>\n
P2 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Liberalized views of sexuality are foreign to FUS.<\/b><\/p>\n
C \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Therefore, sexual assault does not occur at FUS.<\/b><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Note that this argument does not aim to establish that the administrators at FUS fulfilled their duties to respond to victims of sexual assault. Rather, the argument is that sexual assault does not happen at FUS.<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
(Of course, FUS political science chair Stephen Krason takes this claim a step further: <\/span>sexual assault doesn\u2019t happen anywhere, not even between 30 year-old men and entrapped teenage girls.<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
Much of Poff\u2019s piece focuses on bolstering premise 2: FUS has actively promoted traditional Catholic teaching on human sexuality, and thus eradicated extramarital sex, use of contraception, acceptance of the LGBT+ lifestyles, etc., from its campus.<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
Now this is certainly the impression the administration of FUS would like to leave upon prospective students and their families\u2014especially those who hope FUS is essentially a \u201csafe space\u201d for their homeschoolers. But, as a relatively recent alumnus of FUS, I am afraid Poff is astonishingly na\u00efve on this point. Like at any other university, many students at FUS are sexually active. To believe otherwise is to live either in denial, or else in a rather durable bubble. (There is plenty of both at FUS.)<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
But the heart of Poff\u2019s argument lies in premise 1 above\u2014in the idea that sexual assault occurs because of liberalized views on sexuality. <\/b><\/h3>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
The cause of sexual assault, he tells us, is \u201chookup culture,\u201d in which episodes of sexual assault should \u201ccome as no surprise.\u201d But at FUS, hookup culture is \u201cvirtually non-existent,\u201d and therefore sexual assault is similarly virtually non-existent: \u201cWhen I walk around campus at Franciscan University, I don\u2019t see a sex-crazed student body where rampant sexual assault is taking place.\u201d In other words, his argument is that there is no \u201csex-crazed student body,\u201d and <\/span>therefore <\/span><\/i>there is no sexual assault.<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
It should be noted that this correlation between sexual assault and sexual promiscuity is also assumed by the FUS administrators described in <\/span>Jenn Morson\u2019s original article on FUS and Title IX<\/span><\/a>. \u201cWhat did your dress look like?\u201d \u201cWhy were you drinking in the first place?\u201d (Or as Krason puts it: \u201cDon\u2019t women have to be attentive not to create situations that could open the door to it?\u201d)<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
But premise 1 is false for several reasons.<\/strong><\/h3>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
The first and foremost is that liberalized views of sexuality place a heavy emphasis\u2014or rather, <\/span>all <\/span><\/i>their emphasis\u2014on the requirement that sexual activity be consensual. The basic principle of liberalized views of sexuality is that sexual activity is permissible if and only if it\u2019s consented to. Sexual assault is not the logical consequence of liberalized views of sexuality, but quite literally the only thing incompatible with a liberalized view of sexuality.<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
This point shows some cognitive dissonance in the views of FUS\u2019s defenders, such as Poff, Krason, and Hendershott. On the one hand, they maintain that liberalized views of sexuality are responsible for sexual assault. <\/span>On the other, they complain that liberalized views of sexuality focus so much on consent<\/span><\/a>. In the words of <\/span>Moana\u2019s<\/span><\/i> Tamatoa: <\/span>\u201cPick one! Pick one!\u201d<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
A second reason is that sexual assault obviously predates liberalized views of sexuality\u2014by, roughly, several thousand years. <\/b><\/h3>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
The reason is that sexual assault has little to do with liberalized views of sexuality, but rather with the exercise of <\/span>power<\/span><\/i>. Historically, men have exercised more power over women, and thus women have been the primary target of sexual assault. But sexual assault will occur wherever there is a disordered view of power: that power is not meant for service, but for the exploitation of those over whom one holds power.<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
But worse than being \u201cmerely\u201d false, Poff\u2019s first premise is also a pernicious, harmful lie. Its message is that the young men and women that are victims of sexual assault are <\/span>responsible <\/span><\/i>for the fact that they were assaulted. They played with fire, and got burned.<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
One reason why this idea is pernicious is that it reinforces the harmful message many victims of assault already internalize: that the assault was their fault. To those who have not experienced trauma, it can be difficult to understand why victims of sexual assault would blame themselves. <\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
But the reason is paradoxical: for an individual brutally stripped of all agency, blaming oneself can be a way of apparent self-empowerment.<\/b><\/h3>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cIf only I hadn\u2019t\u2026\u201d\u2014This is what so many victims of sexual assault repeat to themselves as a mantra, hoping that there was something they could have done, or else can now do. It can take years of therapy for a victim of assault to retrain her self-blaming thought-processes, but in the meantime we have a duty to affirm\u2014wholeheartedly, without reservation\u2014that no victim of assault is to blame, in any way, for what happened to them.<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
Accordingly, Poff\u2019s attempt to deflect criticism of the institution by suggesting that young men and women are sexually assaulted because of sexual promiscuity is symptomatic of much, much deeper problems. One of the problems is <\/span>what some authors have described as \u201cpurity culture,\u201d<\/span><\/a> a perversion of Christian sexual ethics which regards sexually active women as impure, disgusting, and worthy of shame.<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
Another is simply the fact that FUS is a business, and thus interested in advertising its brand. Its current brand, as built up by former President Fr. Terence Henry, is that FUS is an oasis of \u201ctrue Catholicism\u201d where sunbeat neocon culture warriors can send their children to arm them against <\/span>the coming Soros-funded apocalypse<\/span><\/a>. Accordingly, the investigation into sexual assault at FUS is first and foremost a financial hazard: reports of assault threatens to dissuade parents from sending their daughters there, and damages the university\u2019s image, which in turn affects the bottom line.<\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
The main contention of its author Jeremiah Poff (a current student at Franciscan University of Steubenville) is that such \u201cdevoutly Catholic institutions\u201d have not neglected to address the problem of sexual assault, but are rather \u201con the front lines of preventing such behaviors.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n In abstract, his argument is rather straightforward:<\/span><\/p>\n P1 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Sexual assaults occur because of liberalized views of sexuality.<\/b><\/p>\n P2 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Liberalized views of sexuality are foreign to FUS.<\/b><\/p>\n C \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Therefore, sexual assault does not occur at FUS.<\/b><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Note that this argument does not aim to establish that the administrators at FUS fulfilled their duties to respond to victims of sexual assault. Rather, the argument is that sexual assault does not happen at FUS.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n (Of course, FUS political science chair Stephen Krason takes this claim a step further: <\/span>sexual assault doesn\u2019t happen anywhere, not even between 30 year-old men and entrapped teenage girls.<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Much of Poff\u2019s piece focuses on bolstering premise 2: FUS has actively promoted traditional Catholic teaching on human sexuality, and thus eradicated extramarital sex, use of contraception, acceptance of the LGBT+ lifestyles, etc., from its campus.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Now this is certainly the impression the administration of FUS would like to leave upon prospective students and their families\u2014especially those who hope FUS is essentially a \u201csafe space\u201d for their homeschoolers. But, as a relatively recent alumnus of FUS, I am afraid Poff is astonishingly na\u00efve on this point. Like at any other university, many students at FUS are sexually active. To believe otherwise is to live either in denial, or else in a rather durable bubble. (There is plenty of both at FUS.)<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The cause of sexual assault, he tells us, is \u201chookup culture,\u201d in which episodes of sexual assault should \u201ccome as no surprise.\u201d But at FUS, hookup culture is \u201cvirtually non-existent,\u201d and therefore sexual assault is similarly virtually non-existent: \u201cWhen I walk around campus at Franciscan University, I don\u2019t see a sex-crazed student body where rampant sexual assault is taking place.\u201d In other words, his argument is that there is no \u201csex-crazed student body,\u201d and <\/span>therefore <\/span><\/i>there is no sexual assault.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n It should be noted that this correlation between sexual assault and sexual promiscuity is also assumed by the FUS administrators described in <\/span>Jenn Morson\u2019s original article on FUS and Title IX<\/span><\/a>. \u201cWhat did your dress look like?\u201d \u201cWhy were you drinking in the first place?\u201d (Or as Krason puts it: \u201cDon\u2019t women have to be attentive not to create situations that could open the door to it?\u201d)<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The first and foremost is that liberalized views of sexuality place a heavy emphasis\u2014or rather, <\/span>all <\/span><\/i>their emphasis\u2014on the requirement that sexual activity be consensual. The basic principle of liberalized views of sexuality is that sexual activity is permissible if and only if it\u2019s consented to. Sexual assault is not the logical consequence of liberalized views of sexuality, but quite literally the only thing incompatible with a liberalized view of sexuality.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n This point shows some cognitive dissonance in the views of FUS\u2019s defenders, such as Poff, Krason, and Hendershott. On the one hand, they maintain that liberalized views of sexuality are responsible for sexual assault. <\/span>On the other, they complain that liberalized views of sexuality focus so much on consent<\/span><\/a>. In the words of <\/span>Moana\u2019s<\/span><\/i> Tamatoa: <\/span>\u201cPick one! Pick one!\u201d<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The reason is that sexual assault has little to do with liberalized views of sexuality, but rather with the exercise of <\/span>power<\/span><\/i>. Historically, men have exercised more power over women, and thus women have been the primary target of sexual assault. But sexual assault will occur wherever there is a disordered view of power: that power is not meant for service, but for the exploitation of those over whom one holds power.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n But worse than being \u201cmerely\u201d false, Poff\u2019s first premise is also a pernicious, harmful lie. Its message is that the young men and women that are victims of sexual assault are <\/span>responsible <\/span><\/i>for the fact that they were assaulted. They played with fire, and got burned.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n One reason why this idea is pernicious is that it reinforces the harmful message many victims of assault already internalize: that the assault was their fault. To those who have not experienced trauma, it can be difficult to understand why victims of sexual assault would blame themselves. <\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIf only I hadn\u2019t\u2026\u201d\u2014This is what so many victims of sexual assault repeat to themselves as a mantra, hoping that there was something they could have done, or else can now do. It can take years of therapy for a victim of assault to retrain her self-blaming thought-processes, but in the meantime we have a duty to affirm\u2014wholeheartedly, without reservation\u2014that no victim of assault is to blame, in any way, for what happened to them.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Accordingly, Poff\u2019s attempt to deflect criticism of the institution by suggesting that young men and women are sexually assaulted because of sexual promiscuity is symptomatic of much, much deeper problems. One of the problems is <\/span>what some authors have described as \u201cpurity culture,\u201d<\/span><\/a> a perversion of Christian sexual ethics which regards sexually active women as impure, disgusting, and worthy of shame.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Another is simply the fact that FUS is a business, and thus interested in advertising its brand. Its current brand, as built up by former President Fr. Terence Henry, is that FUS is an oasis of \u201ctrue Catholicism\u201d where sunbeat neocon culture warriors can send their children to arm them against <\/span>the coming Soros-funded apocalypse<\/span><\/a>. Accordingly, the investigation into sexual assault at FUS is first and foremost a financial hazard: reports of assault threatens to dissuade parents from sending their daughters there, and damages the university\u2019s image, which in turn affects the bottom line.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\nBut the heart of Poff\u2019s argument lies in premise 1 above\u2014in the idea that sexual assault occurs because of liberalized views on sexuality. <\/b><\/h3>\n
But premise 1 is false for several reasons.<\/strong><\/h3>\n
A second reason is that sexual assault obviously predates liberalized views of sexuality\u2014by, roughly, several thousand years. <\/b><\/h3>\n
But the reason is paradoxical: for an individual brutally stripped of all agency, blaming oneself can be a way of apparent self-empowerment.<\/b><\/h3>\n