Prepared by Ana Clara Miranda Guimaraes, AVP Research & Advocacy
November 21st, 2024
Preamble and Purpose:
The purpose of this document is to provide recommendations for Carleton University’s Sexual Violence Policy which is currently under review. Sexual Violence Prevention is one of CUSA’s 10 advocacy priorities for this academic year. CUSA is a strong advocate for addressing sexual violence at Carleton and in assuring students’ safety on campus. Whereas CUSA was informed that its recommendations should be submitted separately from the SVPEC’s recommendations, following thorough review of the Policy, consultation with CUSA’s advocacy team, CUSA Councilors, and students at large, this is a set of recommendations our association brings forward.
Recommendations:
SECTION 4:
1) Additions to the Policy’s Definitions
A. CUSA recommends that the terms “Gender Identity” and “Gender Expression” are included in the definitions of Section 4.1.
B. CUSA recommends that the term “Age of Consent” is added to the policy followed by its definition in Section 4.1.
SECTION 5:
1) Specification of Education, Prevention and Awareness Initiatives in the Policy:
Section 5.1 highlights Carleton University’s commitment to addressing sexual violence through education, prevention, and awareness, yet it lacks concrete examples of the steps taken or planned to achieve this goal.
A. We recommend that the policy explicitly outline the initiatives and activities that are or will be implemented, in order to demonstrate a clear and actionable commitment to prevention all through while providing transparency and accountability to the university community.
SECTION 6:
1) Strengthen the University’s Accountability in the Policy
There are no subsections under Section 6 that outline mechanisms to ensure accountability from the university in the handling of sexual violence disclosures and reports. Specifically, the university is not obligated to abide by its own policy in cases where a student’s report is mishandled, and there are no provisions for reparations or remedies for the complainant in such instances in this policy.
A. We recommend the inclusion of explicit accountability measures within the policy. These could include a clear obligation for the university to adhere to its stated procedures, along with consequences for institutional failures. The policy should outline reparative actions available to students if their case is mishandled.
2) Clarity on What the Services Provided Entail
Section 6.2 provides a list of services available followed by their contact information, yet does not include any information on the support each resource is able to provide to the complainant.
A. We recommend that there should be a clear explanation of the various supports that resources provide, instead of only their contact information.
3) Corrections on In-Person Emergency Disclosure
Section 6.3 states that Robertson Hall is the location CSS can be found for emergency in-person disclosure, and it is now the Pigiarvik building.
4) Clarity on how Reports are Handled in the Policy
Section 6.5 fails to provide sufficient detail in how each service manages the reports.
A. To ensure transparency and build trust in the process, we recommend providing a clear and detailed outline of what happens after a disclosure or report is made. This should include a step-by-step description of how the disclosure is received by the relevant service, the roles and responsibilities of staff involved, timelines for follow-up, and the options available to the complainant at each stage.
5) Lack of Diversity in the Members of SVRC Composition
The current composition of the Sexual Violence Review Committee (SVRC), as outlined in Section 6.5 d). reflects a lack of diversity and inclusivity. The inclusion of Labour Relations and the Deputy Provost may not be necessary for all cases, as their roles are primarily administrative and may not contribute directly to survivor-centered or trauma-informed approaches.
A. We recommend revising the composition of the SVRC to include a diverse group of individuals, ensuring representation across gender identities, racial backgrounds, and equity-seeking groups, in order to make students more comfortable and feel supported.
6) Implementation and Further Clarity on Academic Accommodations for the Complainant
Section 6.5 d) lacks clarity on the academic and employment accommodations provided by the University. Furthermore, it is unclear if these accommodations are available through each faculty professor of the complainant or through the Department of Equity and Inclusive Communities.
A. We recommend specifying the process by which academic and employment accommodations will be provided, ensuring clear guidance for both complainants and faculty or staff. The policy should outline whether accommodations, such as exam deferrals, class or schedule changes, or modified work responsibilities, are managed by the EIC or directly by faculty members, and the steps involved in requesting them.
SECTION 8:
1) Ensure Equal Access to Legal Support for Complainants and Respondents
Section 8.4 of the policy provides the Respondent with the option of receiving support from both Ombuds Services and the Manager of Student Conduct and Harm Reduction for assistance, while the Complainant is only permitted to have an EIC advisor, which are very different services that constitute different levels of power. This disparity creates an imbalance in the support available to the Complainant, potentially undermining the fairness and equity of the process.
A. We recommend that the policy be amended to allow the Complainant to have similar representation as the Respondent, and provide equal access and support to both parties.
2) Limit the Initiation of the Alternative Resolution Process to Survivors
Section 8.12 allows for both the complainant and the respondent to initiate an Alternative Resolution process.
A. To ensure this policy is survivor-centric, the complainant should be the only party allowed to initiate this process.
3) Lack of Accountability for the Respondent if Interim Measures are Disrespected
Section 8.12 highlights the university’s responsibility in ensuring that interim measures are implemented to separate parties and ensure safety concerns, yet it does not specify the consequences for the respondent if interim measures are disrespected or discontinued. Furthermore, it vaguely mentions that “non-compliance with the interim measures may result in additional measures and/or discipline being imposed”.
A. We recommend including, outlining and specifying the repercussions and reverberations the respondent might face if they shall disrespect the interim measures in place to ensure the compliance of the respondent, and to maintain the complainant’s safety, security and trust.
SECTION 9:
1) Definition of Competence in Relation to the Chosen Investigator
Section 9.4 a) highlights that the SVRC will appoint an investigator who has competence in conducting investigations related to allegations of sexual violence, yet does not define what competence, and how it is assessed or determined in order to appoint the investigator.
A. We recommend that the policy clearly defines what it determines as competence, and how it is assessed for more transparency, justice and security for the complainant.
2) Definition of Timelines in the Investigation Process
Section 9.4 d) mentions the investigation will be done in “timely fashion”, failing to provide an expected time required for the investigation process to start and be completed. Furthermore, this indefiniteness is discouraging to the complainant, which overlooks the complainant’s trust and the university’s accountability.
A. We recommend including clear and specific timeframes for the investigation process to help ensure it happens fairly and effectively.