Letter to the Editor: RIT Faculty Respond to Student Orientation Presentation (ROO slide)
by Members of the RIT community | published Sep. 14th, 2017
Dear President Munson and Provost Haefner,
We write in response to the recent program for first-year students, “Alcohol and Chill,” and the attention one slide has received. We applaud RIT’s willingness to foster frank discussion about both sexuality and sexual misconduct and agree that sexual misconduct on campus must be addressed proactively with concrete suggestions about dealing with challenging situations. We have read and listened to the reasons for the presentation’s design provided by the administration and by the Center for Women and Gender, and many of us have spoken to students who attended the event. Having considered its context, we still believe that the presentation, in particular the now-infamous ROO slide, was ill-suited to its intended task.
Discussions of rape and sexual assault must be guided by research, much of which finds that sexual violence is about domination, not sex. Sexual assault is sustained by anger and hatred, including misogyny, racism, and homophobia, a desire for power, and the sense that others are obliged by one’s personal desire. Masturbation cannot resolve these forces. Since the orientation organizers work closely with students, surely they understand how the ROO slide could be harmful, particularly to those most vulnerable. And, indeed, this is what we are now hearing from students that attended the event: that, because of the presentation, many would now not be comfortable voicing their concerns or, worse, their victimization to RIT personnel.
Humor can play an important role in learning, yet research also shows how humor can trivialize violence. It is possible to talk about sex, the centrality of consent, and the damage caused by sexual violence with sensitivity and wit, but without trivializing the issues, misrepresenting the research findings, condescending to students, or eliding the difference between violent action and sexual desire. The slide failed on these counts.
We are most disappointed by the administration’s response to date. Dr. Johnson’s framing of concerns as ignorant of context and her citing the superior expertise of the organizers of student orientation de-legitimizes reasonable criticism and well-founded offense. Educators know that speakers are responsible for how their words are perceived, regardless of intention. We must accept responsibility when our well-intended lessons go wrong and learn from our mistakes. Doubling down on the claim that critics are ignorant and unjustifiably offended prevents an honest dialogue that is necessary for establishing trust and confidence in RIT, the Center for Women and Gender, and the other organizers. Likewise, while we appreciate President Munson’s recent acknowledgment of criticism, we note that critics are not condemning the presentation on account of “sensitivities,” but instead objecting to the way the presentation ignored legitimate research in an attempt at humor.
A university is an environment where everyone can learn from open critical thinking and constructive criticism. Motivating our criticism is a sincere commitment to our students, a belief that practices should be consistent with the best scientific research, and a desire to proactively address sexual assault. We strongly urge the program organizers and other administration to:
1. Release the entire presentation to help the community interpret the ROO slide in context.
2. Draft an official public letter which acknowledges the difference between sexual violence and sexual acts and offers a genuine apology for unintentionally normalizing sexual violence. Do not blame students and other critics for legitimate perceptions or fault them for misunderstanding a well-intentioned action. Please send a copy to every student who attended the presentation, reassuring those that now feel further at risk.
3. Commit to more carefully considering and vetting next year’s program on sexual assault. It is vital that such programming continue and that its deeper message not be lost.
Sincerely,
Scott Franklin, Professor
Katie Terezakis, Associate Professor
Vincent Serravallo, Associate Professor
Also signed by:
Sonia Lopez Alarcon, Associate Professor
Sara Armengot, Associate Professor
Margaret Bailey, Professor
Suzanne M. Bamonto, Associate Professor
Nathaniel Barlow, Assistant Professor
Linda Barton, Associate Professor
Kari Cameron, Lecturer
Nathan Cahill, Associate Professor
Manuela Campanelli, Professor
Conerly Casey, Associate Professor
Elizabeth Cherry, Associate Professor
Elisabetta Sanino D'Amanda, Principal Lecturer
Betsy Dell, Professor
Janelle Duda-Banwar, PhD Candidate
Erin Esposito, NTID Support
Joshua Faber, Associate Professor
Elizabeth Hane, Associate Professor
James Heliotis, Professor
Joseph M. Henning, Associate Professor
Lisa Hermsen, Professor
Dawn Hollenbeck, Associate Professor
Andre Hudson, Associate Professor
Christine Keiner, Professor
Christine Kray, Associate Professor
Uli Linke, Professor
Kelly Norris Martin, Associate Professor
Susan Powell, Senior Staff Assistant
Ruben Proano, Associate Professor
Wade Robison, Professor
John Roche, Associate Professor
Jason D. Scott, Associate Professor
Phil Shaw, Lecturer
Ulrike Stroszeck, Principal Lecturer
Robert Teese, Professor
Sarah Thompson, Associate Professor
Lawrence Torcello, Associate Professor
Andrew Tuttle, Alumnus
Robert Ulin, Professor
Christine VanHemel, Senior Staff Specialist
Kaitlin Stack Whitney, Visiting Assistant Professor
Kristoffer Whitney, Assistant Professor
Tammara Wiley Wickson, Academic Advisor
Leslie Kate Wright, Associate Professor
Richard Zanibbi, Associate Professor