Dalhousie University has recently come under fire after several of the university’s male dentistry students were implicated in an offensive online conversation containing sexually violent comments over Facebook.
Thirteen male students belonged to a Facebook group — paradoxically named “Class of DDS 2015 Gentlemen” — in which they joked about drugging women with chloroform and proclaimed that the penis is “the tool used to wean and convert lesbians and virgins into useful, productive members of society.” A photo of a bikini-clad woman was also posted, captioned: “Bang until stress is relieved or unconscious (girl).”
More than 47,000 people have signed a petition calling for the expulsion of the group’s members.
Yet, since no physical harm was actually inflicted on anyone, others believe that such outrage over these posts is excessive. They argue that lowbrow humour cannot be taken as a serious indication of the students’ professional conduct, so there are no real grounds for punishing those involved.
Indeed, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that the students intended to act, nor that any of them have acted on their statements.
Nevertheless, instances such as group members voting in a poll on which of two female classmates they would like to “hate fuck” is a significant cause for concern to the community.
Regardless of whether or not the offending students named any of their peers, the general trivialization of sexual violence is enough to raise red flags. Various studies, including one undertaken at the University of Iowa, have shown that joking about sexual violence and exposure to sexist humour is positively correlated with self-reported proclivity to rape. It’s reasonable, then, to take preventative disciplinary measures to ensure that these men do not continue down a path of sexual violence.
Because the offending students are supposed to become medical professionals this year and were already working at Dalhousie’s dental clinic, a disciplinary response from the university is especially warranted. These soon-to-be dentists must be trusted, beyond reasonable doubt, not to abuse their power and position. There is considerable precedence for such abuse — in 2013, for example, an anaesthesiologist in Toronto was found guilty of sexually assaulting 21 women while they were sedated.
Principled critics, however, seem to ignore any potential harm and maintain that disciplinary action would be an encroachment on the students’ right to free speech. While it is certainly true that universities are bastions of intellectual freedom, rights always come with reasonable limits.
Some have also raised concerns that perhaps the privacy of these students has been violated, as the posts were taken from a supposedly “closed” Facebook group. This argument holds no weight because the group named itself in association with Dalhousie’s dentistry program, thus placing itself within the university’s jurisdiction.
That being said, the anger that has arisen over Dalhousie’s decision not to reflexively expel these young men is unreasonable and borders on a witch-hunt.
Universities must balance the need for a fair trial with the responsibility to maintain the safety of its students and patrons. In attempts to do this, Dalhousie postponed exams for the 2015 dentistry class, and temporarily shut down its dental clinic.
Perhaps a more suitable solution would have been to suspend the offending students, a disciplinary course of action laid out in the university’s Student Code of Conduct.
What’s more, stakeholders, and especially victims, deserve to be given the full story and be consulted in the adjudication process.
At Dalhousie, the failure to consult, and therefore fairly represent, one of the targeted female students resulted in the decision to pursue restorative justice as the main resolution process. Additionally, without being exposed to the Facebook group’s contents, students cannot make informed decisions on how to respond as a community.
University responses and investigations into incidents like these need to be orderly and transparent, so as to promote a sense of trust and accountability. As painstakingly outlined by the DalGazette, Dalhousie’s response so far has been incredibly contradictory and confusing, leading to increased disaffection with the university administration. The lengthy and secretive nature of restorative justice has also drawn much ire from students and the public.
As publicly funded educational institutions, universities have the responsibility to protect the safety and well being of their students, while also enshrining principles of equality, tolerance, and respect for human dignity. In the fight against sexual violence, we must not only hold individual offenders accountable, but also institutions like Dalhousie when they fail to respond to misconduct effectively.
Victoria Wicks is an associate comment editor at The Varsity. She is a second-year student at Trinity College studying political science and philosophy. Her column appears bi-weekly.
