Editorial: Stanford alcohol ban is tone-deaf to sexual assault prevention

After a tumultuous summer in the headlines, Stanford is making some changes on campus this year.

On Aug. 23, Stanford announced an update to its student alcohol policy banning hard alcohol from all on-campus parties. With the exception of parties hosted by student organizations and residences of graduate students, violations of the policy will result in administrative action and potential removal of the students from on-campus housing.

Starting this semester, hard liquor will be banned from all on-campus parties, dorms and Greek life facilities — beer and wine are allowed. Students who are over 21 years old can only have liquor bottles in their dorms if they are in bottles less than 750 milliliters.  

The changes come months after the high-profile case involving Brock Turner, who was convicted of sexually assaulting a 23-year-old woman behind a dumpster after they attended the same fraternity party. The case brought public scrutiny for the six-month jail sentence many perceived as too lenient for the severity of the offense. Furthermore, the victim wrote a powerful statement about her experience which made national headlines and exposed the astounding inequities of the legal system.

The alcohol ban is based on student feedback the university has been taking since March — before the Brock Turner incident — according to the update notice. But it comes at a time when the whole country is waiting for Stanford to respond to its pervasive college rape culture. Even if the university didn’t create the policy as a result of Turner’s case, the policy change comes off as an approach to cracking down on sexual assault. Banning alcohol is not only a misguided way of addressing sexual assault on campus, it also absolves all responsibility from the attackers who commit violent sexual crimes.

Turner blamed his actions on the party culture of drinking instead of taking responsibility for sexually assaulting the woman.  In essence, the university is absolving responsibility for dangerous behavior of any kind by creating such an outrageous and misinformed policy.

By implementing a policy that uses a restriction of alcohol as a resolution for campus sexual assault, the university is falsely painting the issue as one that is simply caused by alcohol instead of focusing on consent and the people behind the crime.  

The 2015 Stanford University Sexual Climate Survey revealed that 32.9 percent of undergraduate women and 12.3 percent of male undergraduates have experienced sexual misconduct ranging from sexual touching to penetration while attending Stanford. Considering how prevalent the matter is among its students, Stanford has a responsibility to address the issue effectively and assertively.

The university is reinforcing outdated misconceptions that alcohol is what causes sexual assault, serving an injustice to every victim that has been told they shouldn’t party if they don’t want to be assaulted.  

According to Stanford, about 97 percent of all undergraduates live on campus, meaning an overwhelming majority of students will be impacted by the new policy. Rather than punishing those who violate the sexual misconduct policies the university enforces, the ban would punish the majority of students who use alcohol without ever committing sexual assault.

We strongly implore Stanford to focus their policies on addressing the issues that perpetrate a rape culture. This year, Stanford is investing $2.7 million into programs such as mandatory trainings, peer-based education trainings and initiatives directed towards sexual assault prevention. These — and not scapegoating alcohol — are appropriate ways to tackle the issue of sexual assaults on college campuses.  

In the past years, the university has changed some policies such as using a “yes means yes” definition of consent, as well as creating new offices devoted to sexual violence education — the Title IX Office, the Confidential Support Team and the Office of Sexual Assault & Relationship Abuse Education and Response.

Instead of wasting time and resources on a policy that will not change sexual assault rates, Stanford should focus on these programs that have proven to be successful.

Pitt has taken similar steps through its development of It’s On Us, Campus Climate surveys, SECCS, Title IX office, SHARE, mandatory orientation programs and online trainings regarding issues of consent and sexuality. Pitt does not have a comparable ban on alcohol for a reason — it does not get to the heart of the issue. Stanford would benefit from following Pitt’s lead in adopting this perspective.

We can certainly debate the merits of binge drinking and alcohol-related incidents on college campuses, but that is a different conversation. Sexual assault is an issue of its own that deserves its own set of proactive, comprehensive policies.

Stanford is right to make an effort to change rape culture. Stanford is absolutely wrong to use alcohol prohibition as the answer to it.