The prominence of rape culture on Canadian post-secondary campuses is far from being a new topic of discussion. However, despite dialogues, scandal, and debate that have recently opened up, the validation and common use of misogynistic comments and the sexual degradation of female students continues to make appearances in our news and social media. The newest case to add to an ever-growing thread of discussions comes from the dental school at Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia. In mid-December attention was drawn to a Facebook page created by 13, male, fourth year dentistry students at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The Facebook page, titled Class of DDS 2015 Gentlemen, was used as an open-forum on which the participating male students made crude and sexually explicit comments about their female classmates. Comments ranged from sexually degrading the women, to suggesting the female students return to more “domestic” roles. The page even featured a Facebook poll on which members could compare and vote for which female classmates they would most likely “hate f**k”. Members continued with making jokes about using chloroform on women and violently sexualizing their female peers.
Since the discovery of the Facebook page, the 13 students involved have been suspended for sexual harassment of their fellow classmates, barred from their clinical activities, and were restricted from their December exams. Despite some demands, the university has thus far chosen to not release the names of the students involved. Claims are being made that releasing the names of those involved may cause emotional damage or prompt some of those suspended students to cause themselves physical harm. While the University had first proposed to deal with the 13 members of the Facebook group in a more “privatized justice process”, the scandal sparked protests both on and offline by fellow students, alongside demands that the 13 males be expelled. While other Dalhousie students resumed their studies on January 5th, all dentistry students are not set to return to their studies until January 12th. It will be in discussion within the university whether or not the students involved in the group will return to their fourth year studies this coming Monday and proceed to graduation.
The DDS 2015 Gentlemen group is a prime example of the existence of rape culture on the campus of one of Canada’s most well-known universities. While this may be the most recent scandal, it is only one of many. As defined by the WAVAW (Women Against Violence Against Women) rape culture “condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as the norm… In a rape culture both men and women assume that sexual violence is a fact of life” (http://www.wavaw.ca/what-is-rape-culture/). The current scandal at Dalhousie, last year’s SFUO and hockey team scandals at the University of Ottawa, and the 2008 case of Pridgen vs. the University of Calgary, are just a few examples of how stories of online misconduct and rape culture continue to be prominent in the news and on Canadian campuses. Current events in Halifax could be considered proof that the issue of rape culture is not diffusing on campuses. How Dalhousie chooses to treat this case, address the issue, and deal with those members of the DDS 2015 Gentlemen will be both reflective of how similar cases will be dealt with in the future, and have been addressed in the past.
As the discussion of rape culture continues and the number of these types of incidents continues to grow, we must take under consideration these varying cases, as well as the ways in which fellow students, academic staff, the judicial system, and general population choose to treat the issue. Our very own uOttawa did not fall short in this category as it saw scandals surrounding the men’s hockey team – which, in a similar fashion, did not seek to the release of the boys’ names and included a suspension of the entire team to protect these identities – along with a private conversation about the SFUO President made public that arguably sparked the awareness of rape culture on campus.
The Dalhousie case falls within the web of such events, each borrowing characteristics from one another. Similar to the initial incident with the Gee Gees hockey team, the names of those involved have not been released. However, this begs the question of whether or not their release is a ticking time bomb awaiting further punishment. It also carries a social media component that is an ambient part of campus life.
All of these events seem to happen outside the confines of campus, leaving people to wonder why academic institutions are getting involved in seemingly private matters. For this it is important to revisit another Canadian case in which two brothers were placed on academic probation for allegedly defaming a professor online on a Facebook group titled I NO longer fear hell, I took a course with Aruna Mitra. In this case, the students involved with the Facebook page, debated the decision made by the University of Calgary to suspend the student’s for the online page and comments made, taking the case to the Court of Queen’s Bench, where it was ruled that the comments were not defamatory. It was also ruled that Universities are not a Charter-free zone, implying that they must enforce the charter when matters affect the school’s population. In this case, students were dismissed for online comments made against the professor, due to their right to freedom of speech, and ruling that the comments were in fact not physically or emotionally harmful to professor Mitra.
It is precisely for this reason that Universities have a vested interest in such cases. They are required to protect the rights of their students, especially in situations where both parties are potentially exposed to harm. In this nature, Dalhousie has expressed concern about self-harm of the 13 individuals involved, whose names may not be released unless there is legal action beyond restorative justice pursued in the case.
The pressing issue in the matter right now is whether the names of the 13 students should be released. It seems this is a balancing act between freedom of expression and transparency. As proven in Pridgen vs. the University of Calgary, universities must protect students’ rights to freedom of expression. However, this begs the question of whether they have the duty to protect the privacy of all their students, or whether they have the duty to report such incidents to potential hiring institutions. A restorative justice approach has been selected by the victims, but the decision to pursue further action rests with the school which is facing continuously increasing pressure from the community and dental institutions to release the names of the students involved, potentially harming their future social and professional lives.
Image Sources
Article Sources