When “No” Means “NCMO”: Sexual Assault and Consent At BYU

From soaking to durfing to NCMOs, there is no doubt that the dating scene at BYU is weird. Someone new to this culture could definitely get themselves into some uncomfortable situations not knowing the terminology. More concerning than the confusing jargon in the dating scene, though, is the lack of understanding of consent on BYU’s campus. In 2017, BYU did a student climate survey about sexual assault on campus. Within the 2017 school year, the survey reported that 1 in 16 women experienced unwanted sexual advances. This is unsurprising considering that 78% of students said that they had not received any training on what the definition of consent is. 77% had not received training on the legal definition of sexual assault and 61% had not received training on BYU’s policy on sexual assault. Our campus is simply sex-ignorant. We don’t talk about sexual assault and the administration does virtually nothing to change that, choosing silence rather than training, reaction rather than prevention. (Report on the Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault)

Of course, this does not necessarily mean that no one has any idea of what consent is. I mean, my mom had to sign a consent form for me to go on my marching band trip. It probably has something to do with giving permission, right? But many people don’t actively think about consent because they haven’t been trained to. In an interview with Jenna Woolley, president of BYU Students Against Sexual Assault (BYUSTASA), she mentioned that often perpetrators at BYU aren’t malicious, they are just ill-informed.

Professor Ben Ogles, Psychology professor for the College of Family, Home, and Social Sciences, said in a devotional, “I believe some instances of unwanted sexual contact at BYU occur because one person assumes the other is interested and ‘goes for it’ with-out ever checking to see if their perception of the other person’s wishes is accurate. They then may stop when explicitly asked, but only after having kissed or touched with-out permission.” But ill-informed or not, the assault still happens. And that unwanted sexual contact can leave the person spiritually, mentally, emotionally, and physically scarred. ((PDF) The Psychological Impact of Sexual Assault On Women and Children: A Review) (Agency, Accountability, and the Atonement)

There is certainly a culture within the church of not discussing sexual topics, even when it comes to sexual assault. When I started college at a different school (I’m a transfer student), incoming freshmen had in-depth training about consent, sexual assault, and being an active bystander. There was an online training, a serious play depicting the effects of sexual assault, and discussions facilitated by trained upperclassmen. And I learned so much! My parents didn’t teach me these things, and you can count on public school to drop the ball. In Priest’s quorum, we had many lessons on avoiding uncomfortable sexual situations but never on how to avoid those situations by communicating and respecting boundaries. So, it was in college where I got my first real training. I learned how to help a friend that confides in me. I learned how to spot someone making unwanted sexual advances. I learned about my campus resources and policies on sexual assault. I learned that talking about expectations and boundaries before kissing is normal and healthy. Ben Ogles framed this well in his devotional, “The problem is that not every kiss is wanted. Wouldn’t it ruin the moment if a person does not know how to read nonverbal signals well or simply believes that the other person is interested when in reality they are not? The pain of being physically violated is much worse than the brief and potentially awkward moment when someone lets you know that they would like to be more physically intimate.” The reality is that not seeking consent is at best ignorant and at worst conceited and selfish. A little training could help with that.

At BYU we see a huge gap of knowledge between what students should understand going into a healthy relationship (and perhaps eventually marriage) and what they actually understand. Even if students aren’t perpetrators or haven’t been sexually assaulted, they may not even know how to help a friend that was, how to actively prevent it, or where to direct a friend that was assaulted. BYU is advertised to be a place of honor and strong character and that maxim cannot be fulfilled without first taking responsibility for the safety of their campus through prevention efforts.

BYU has an obligation to close that gap. The first “Expected Outcome” of a BYU experience is “spiritually strengthening,” and how can that happen when 67% of unwanted sexual contact negatively impacted students spiritually? The second tenet is “intellectually enlarging” and how can that happen when 41% of victims of sexual assault were harmed academically? The third outcome is “character building” and how can that happen when 1 in 16 women on cam-pus are sexually assaulted each year? The last outcome is preparation for “life-long learning and service,” and how can that happen when 25% of victims of sexual assault have found lasting, long-term negative impacts on mental health? ((PDF) The Psychological Impact of Sexual Assault On Women and Children: A Review)

Short of the Pontifical Roman Major Seminary, BYU is the world’s most chaste school. Right? Right?? Wrong.

Though perhaps they won’t admit it, BYU administration should know that their students can get into some hot and heavy situations. I’m sure you could ask any singles ward bishop and get enough stories to fill a (very confidential) book. BYU would never disclose the number of sexual honor code violations and heaven knows how many go unreported (only 3% of sexual assault cases get reported to the Title IX office). The lack of sexual assault prevention could come from an unwillingness to acknowledge that sex (and sex-adjacent actions) happen(s) here. If you ignore it, then it must not exist. Or perhaps the BYU administration feels like they would be liable for the effectiveness of training if they implemented a course. Taking ownership of the problem would mean devoting time and resources to stopping it. It’s difficult to really know why there aren’t courses (representatives from the Title IX Office; College of Family, Home, and Social Sciences; Global Women’s Studies; Honor Code Office; and College of Nursing all declined an interview), but it’s not a significant leap to say that there is some sort of self-preservation happening at the expense of the students.

Though it is clear they have dropped the ball on prevention efforts, it is important to note that BYU has taken significant steps to help sexual assault victims on campus. Jenna Woolley patiently pointed out to me that President Worthen has taken action, most notably by removing the investigation clause by the honor code office for Title IX reports (93% of survey participants thought that if they were sexually assaulted, their compliance with the Honor Code would be investigated, and nearly half [45%] thought that in order to continue in school after being sexually assaulted, their ecclesiastical endorsement would be questioned). He has also implemented a sort of training for freshmen in which an officer covers the school’s sexual assault policy, like the one found at the end of each professor’s syllabus. Additionally, the title IX office has some quick online training that anyone can choose to do. I did the training and while boring (a virtual voice basically reads off PowerPoint slides), it provides good information. Although, those that need the training are also those that wouldn’t take the courses. After all, fish discover water last.

It is also noteworthy that BYU is considerably below the national average of instances of sexual assault. According to a study done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “The prevalence rate for completed sexual assault experienced by undergraduate females during the 2014–2015 academic year, averaged across the nine schools, was 10.3%” (p.18 Bureau of Justice Statistics Research and Development Series). So, an incidence rate of 6% for women at BYU is slightly less troublesome, compared to other schools. This number could come because of ignorance -- many people may not have been taught how to recognize when someone is making nonconsensual advances. It could come because BYU’s marriage rate is so high and the sexual assault line is more ambiguous in a marriage. (Sexual Assault in Intimate Relationships: Introduction to Special Issue). It could also be lower because of BYU’s “stone-cold sober” reputation. After all, substance use behaviors in women during college are strongly associated with experiencing a certain type of sexual assault called “incapacitated sexual assault.” (The Differential Risk Factors of Physically Forced and Alcohol- or Other Drug-Enabled Sexual Assault Among University Women). Or perhaps BYU just admits more respectful students, it’s difficult to know.

But whether we are just “built differently” or not, none of this justifies the blindness of BYU’s administration to the need for prevention on campus. The solution can only be active consent training for students from BYU itself--they must take responsibility for the sexual assault on campus. We, the students, demand it.