Campus sexual assault and student activism,1970–1990

Introduction

In response to the anti-rape movement on college campuses within the United States, Roiphe (1993) writes, “Everyone agrees that rape is a terrible thing, but we don’t agree on what rape is” (p. 181). Roiphe (1993) highlights the tension that has surrounded the anti-rape movement on college campuses. The questioning of defining rape and sexual assault has impacted research, policies, and advocacy from the 1970s through today (Brownmiller, 1975; Fisher et al., 2010; Schwartz, 1997). Various scholars and activists have criticized the movement, questioning if it has been in decline, ignored its social justice aims, or fully embraced intersectionality (Baker and Bevacqua, 2018; Corrigan, 2013; Gornick and Meyer, 1998). According to the United States Department of Justice (2012), rape is, “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” Sexual assault includes any sexual contact or behavior without consent, including rape (United States Department of Justice, 2017). Definitions of sexual violence vary within literature and policies. Researchers struggle to identify appropriate measurements and methodologies to research sexual violence (Fisher et al., 2000, 2010; Hamby and Koss, 2003; Palmer and Perrotti, 2016; Schwartz, 1997). This historical struggle of studying sexual violence impacts today’s research, practice, and policies (Davis et al., 2014; Fisher, 2009; Kruttschnitt et al., 2014).

The transition to attending college is a significant milestone. Students come to learn but are faced with the inevitable reality of their vulnerability. No one expects nor wants to be sexually assaulted, and the trauma impacts how the student exists within their learning environment. Students navigate shame, guilt, blame, and being silenced or questioned by friends, family, administration, and security. Victim-survivors of sexual assault are resilient and navigate reclaiming their learning environment. I was sexually assaulted as a college student and felt the shame, trauma, questions, and lack of belief. As a doctoral student in social work, I continue to seek environments to advocate for and study sexual violence on college campuses. While each victim-survivor’s experience is unique, it is critical to position myself within the context of this research. Social workers have a unique role in addressing sexual violence given the profession’s explicit support of the dignity and worth of every human, the importance of human relationships, and social justice. Given the diverse capacities that social workers practice in, the profession must pay attention to lessons learned from those most impacted.

This historical inquiry will trace the early history of the anti-rape movement within the US at a large, public university in the Midwest. On college campuses, 1 in 5 female and 1 in 16 male students will be sexually assaulted (Black et al., 2011). The US national prevalence between female and male victimization differs, with 1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men being sexually assaulted at some point in their lives (Black et al., 2011). Although both males and females are victims of sexual assault, female students are explicitly referenced in this paper given the higher prevalence. Furthermore, sexual violence impacts women across the globe. In 2013, the World Health Organization, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the South African Medical Research Council published the first synthesized global report on the prevalence of violence against women and estimated that 1 in 3 women will experience sexual or intimate partner violence. The US was not alone in its development of the anti-rape movement, and other countries began establishing their first rape crisis centers and conducting similar research studies within this time period (DeKeseredy, 1997; DeKeseredy and Kelly, 1993; Roggeband, 2004). Consequently, while this paper is a historical analysis of a US university, the global context of the anti-rape movement should not be ignored.

The time period between the 1970s through the 1990s was selected due to the development of national legislation, research, and activism surrounding sexual violence on college campuses. College campuses were required to adhere to new legislation that focused on safety, prevention, and victim rights (Clery Act, 1990; Drug Free Schools & Communities Act, 1989; Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act, 1974; Title IX, 1972; Violence Against Women Act, 1994). By 1990, the Clery Act required any institution of higher education that received federal funding to report public crime statistics, create policies on victim rights and reporting, and develop programs addressing sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. Researchers also were identifying new statistics regarding the prevalence of sexual violence. For instance, in a 1988 study, “1 in 4 female students surveyed were victims of rape or attempted rape” (Warshaw and Koss, 1988: 11). It is noted that this statistic differs from the one previously presented by Black et al. (2011). This difference reflects the complexity and discrepancy that exists in measuring sexual violence. Key literature also was being published as authors shared opinions on feminism and sexual violence (Brownmiller, 1975; Greer, 1970; Roiphe, 1993; Warshaw and Koss, 1988; Wolf, 1990). Besides the developing literature, research, and policies, the first rape crisis centers, prevention programs, and networks emerged that significantly impacted how universities responded to sexual violence (Fisher et al., 2010; “History Document”, n.d.; Roiphe, 1993; Sexual Violence Program, n.d.-c; Warshaw and Koss, 1988).

In order to provide a deeper analysis, this paper will focus on how one US university was impacted by and responded to the anti-rape movement between the 1970s through 1990s. This historical analysis will trace the development of one university’s sexual violence resource center (SVRC), which developed into the student center to provide education, advocacy, prevention, and support.

Historical context and focus

Besides the research and legislation that occurred between 1970 through 1990, the anti-rape movement was led by feminists and community organizers not only on campuses but across the US (Fisher et al., 2010). Second-wave feminists, who were part of a larger anti-violence social movement, began organizing to form the first rape crisis centers and formal membership groups. In 1971, the first rape crisis centers were established, including the Bay Area Women Against Rape in California and the DC Rape Crisis Center in Washington, DC (“History Document,” n.d.; Sexual Violence Program, n.d.-a). By 1974, 61 rape crisis centers had been established in 27 states (“History Document,” n.d.). In 1977, The National Coalition Against Sexual Assault was formed by rape crisis centers, and, in 1978, the National Center for the Prevention and Control of Rape was created to support research and prevention programs (Sexual Violence Program, n.d.-a). Students who identified as feminists organized on campuses, and the first Take Back the Night march, which brought victims and supporters together to “break the silence” and speak out regarding their experiences, occurred in 1982 (“History Document,” n.d.; Sexual Violence Program, n.d.-a).

Many passionate authors wrote about their stories, experiences, and research pertaining to violence against women and feminism, reflecting a diverse array of conflicting opinions (Brownmiller, 1975; Greer, 1970; Roiphe, 1993; Warshaw and Koss, 1988; Wolf, 1990). The sexual liberation and feminism of the 1960s shifted into a new phase during the 1970s, where controversial debates focused on defining what sex should or should not be and, consequently, sexual violence. Some, such as Roiphe (1993), argued that women were overly victimized and, as a result, the sense of freedom in sexual identities and relationships that had been fought for in the 1960s was threatened. Others, including Brownmiller (1975), argued that the current anti-rape movement was imperative to challenge the lack of rape laws, confront the power dynamics between men and women, and, “that women should organize to combat rape was a women’s movement invention” (p. 397).

Key legislation occurred from the 1970s through the 1990s that significantly shaped the responses from institutions of higher education. Title IX was signed into law as part of the Education Amendments of 1972, as a follow-up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that did not protect against discrimination on educational institutions. Title IX (1972) applied to both K-12 settings and higher education institutions, and its focus was to prevent discrimination based on sex to any education program that received federal funding. In 1974, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act was passed and pertained to protecting the privacy of student education records. In 1989, the Drug Free Schools and Communities Act required institutions of higher education to have policies that addressed alcohol and illegal drugs, including prevention programs. In 1990, the Clery Act was passed and focused on increasing transparency and accountability, particularly the safety of students. The Clery Act (1990) mandated that institutions of higher education that receive federal funding must report crime statistics publicly, outline policies pertaining to crime reporting and victim rights, and provide prevention and support programming, particularly for sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. Finally, in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was signed into law as Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. The VAWA (1994) became critical to outlining the rights, responses, and support mandated for violence against women.

Besides the campus policies that developed, researchers, feminist authors, and student activists brought awareness to the prevalence of rape on college campuses. In 1976, Koss studied what she referred to as “hidden rape” and, eventually, developed the largest study of what became known as “acquaintance rape” on campuses with the feminist Ms. Magazine in 1985 (Warshaw and Koss, 1988: 2). It took Koss three years to administer surveys on 32 campuses to over 6100 undergraduate students (Warshaw and Koss, 1988). From this study, Koss created the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) and reported on the prevalence of campus rape. Koss’s study became published as part of a report by Warshaw and Koss (1988) called, “I Never Called It Rape.” Other studies emerged that focused on sexual violence on college campuses, including a 1977 study by Burt of rape-supportive attitudes of men (as cited by Warshaw and Koss, 1988) and national surveys in the 1990s that included the National Women’s Study by Kilpatrick et al. (1992) and the National Violence Against Women Survey by researchers Tjaden and Thoennes (1998a, 1998b, 2000). Policy makers, students, and researchers disagreed that rape on college campuses was a crisis (Fisher et al., 2010; Roiphe, 1993; Warshaw and Koss, 1988). These key research studies, particularly Koss’s study, impacted what became known as the “culture war” surrounding rape on college campuses (Fisher et al., 2010: 3). Fisher et al. (2010) write that this culture war represents the varying views, debate, and stigma surrounding sexual violence.

In order to provide insight into the emergence of the anti-rape movement on college campuses, this paper addresses how one university responded to and was impacted by the emergence of the anti-rape movement during the 1970s through the 1990s. This paper will study how the anti-rape movement was addressed by students, administration, and key stakeholders responding to the movement.

Methods and data sources

This research project was submitted to the university’s Institutional Review Board, which determined that the study did not meet the criteria of human research. However, to protect any identifying information pertaining to the university, employees, and students, student and staff names have been changed in text to protect their identity. The specific university will be referred to as the “university.”

Documents from the university’s Archives Collection provide insight into how the university responded to sexual violence on its campus during the 1970s through 1990s. The university’s Archives contain a Collection specific to the development of its sexual violence program, which encompasses administrative documents, financial documents, program reports, and newspaper clippings. This Collection traces the history of the university’s SVRC, including its establishment in 1986 along with how the university addressed sexual violence during the 1970s through the 1990s. The Archives Collection has several miscellaneous folders that include newspaper clippings, mostly from the campus newspaper, highlighting events and opinions surrounding sexual violence on campus, along with documents pertaining to history, local developments, and other information about sexual assault. These collections focus on information between the 1980s and early 1990s, the time period when significant events occurred at the university pertaining to sexual violence.

While the Collection contains important documents that analyze the issue of sexual violence during this time period, a significant amount of the documents pertains to the early development of the SVRC. The Collection contains the Proposal to the University Administration Regarding the Implementation of Sexual Assault Educational and Counseling Services, submitted by a local public research group in 1985 (Minnesota Public Interest Research Group Women’s Task Force, 1985). In consultation with a local sexual violence program, this public research group outlined a proposal to create the campus sexual violence resource center that would provide confidential crisis, short-term counseling, education, and prevention services to campus students, faculty, and staff. Another critical document, The Chronology of Events Relating to the University Sexual Violence Program and Program Volunteers, outlines key events in the development of the campus sexual violence resource center that demonstrate the university’s response to sexual violence (Sexual Violence Program, n.d.-a). The Sexual Violence Program Annual Report of 1987–1988 and 1988–1989, along with other program reports between 1986 and 1990, provide thorough summaries of the SVRC’s annual programming highlights, budgets, and services (Program Director, 1990, 1989c, 1988b).

Despite the widespread agreement of sexual violence at the university, tension remained about the appropriate campus response, specifically in the role of student volunteers. This tension and controversy are highlighted in the dispute between the newly hired program director for the SVRC and the director of counseling services who supervised the program director of SVRC. On the outset, the program director and director of counseling services appeared to have many similarities. Both individuals were female and had backgrounds and degrees in counseling and clinical work with students. The program director graduated with a master’s of science in counseling, while the director had a doctorate degree in psychology. The nature of their conflict was beyond personality or degree difference but rather the role that students would have in advocating and providing services for their peers. The Collection contains several memos written between the program director and director that outline their dispute in how the SVRC should respond to sexual violence and include the role of students (Program Director, 1988a, 1989b; Director, 1988, 1989b). This Collection includes the director’s response to the program director’s formal grievances that were filed as a result of their dispute (Director, n.d.-b).

The Collection includes memos written to various leadership staff by students, including the board of regents, along with other student organizing materials (Student B, 1989; Student A and Student B, 1990; Friends of SVP, n.d.; Student C et al., 1990; Minnesota Student Association, 1989; SVP Volunteers, 1989). Articles from the campus newspaper, written by the program director, the director, and other students, are included in the Collection and reflect the diversity of opinions regarding program director and director’s dispute, the SVRC, and the role of student activism (Program Director, 1989a; Student G, 1990; “Tragic Silence,” 1989; Director, n.d.-a, 1989a).

The Collection includes documents that identify how campus leadership and administration responded to the dispute between the program director and director. A folder called, Task Force on Sexual Violence and Campus Security to President outlines the Task Force on Sexual Violence and Campus Security created in 1990 by the university president for actions and recommendations to strengthen the campus response (Task Force on Sexual Violence and Campus Security, 1990). Other committee and task force reports from the early 1990s are included in various folders titled (Campus Safety Audit, 1995; Campus Safety and Security Committee, 1991; Faculty, Staff, and Student Affairs Committee & Board of Regents, 1992; Task Force on Sexual Violence and Campus Security, 1991).

Secondary sources were included to provide context to sexual violence on college campuses from the 1970s through the 1990s (Brownmiller, 1975; Fisher et al., 2010; Greer, 1970; Roiphe, 1993; Warshaw and Koss, 1988; Wolf, 1990). These secondary sources were critical texts in discussing sexual violence, research, feminism, and campus culture.

These sources contain numerous strengths in their analysis. For instance, while the Collection is specific to the history of the SVRC, it includes diverse materials from students, presidents, board of regents, security, professors, governing bodies, and others. These documents reflect the different recommendations and information, from crime statistics to educational materials to student petitions, that individuals and groups provided on sexual violence. The number of newspaper articles provides insight into the vast array of opinions and student organizing that occurred. While the Collection includes a diversity of documents and voices, the majority of the documents are compiled from authors in support of the SVRC’s development and highlight student voice and activism. The secondary sources provide context into the role of feminism and identify that many conflicting opinions existed in regard to the anti-rape movement on colleges along with the intersection of feminism.

Findings

The anti-rape movement at the university was reflective of the debate of sexual violence across the US. Laws were passed, research was conducted, books were written, and activists led marches, established rape crisis centers, and led the anti-rape movement. The university tried to confront these multiple changes and, most importantly, identify how to develop a safe campus and support victims of sexual violence. Like the tension felt across the US, the university faced challenges of conflicting opinions that were intertwined in the establishment of the sexual violence resource center. However, it was the students’ persistent advocacy of campus administration that led to conflict resolution.

According to the document, The Chronology of Events Relating to the University’s Sexual Violence Program and Program Volunteers, a research group’s development of a women’s task force and resulting proposal in 1985 led to the university president mandating the creation of a campus sexual assault program and the hiring of the first SVRC program director (Sexual Violence Program, n.d.-b). By 1986, the president accepted the research group’s recommendations, and the first program director of the SVRC was hired (Sexual Violence Program, n.d.-a, n.d.-b).

In the Sexual Violence Program-Annual Report July 1987-June 1988, the SVRC originally was a unit of the university counseling services and had two full-time staff, a .75 full-time therapist, and over two dozen volunteers (Program Director, 1988b). The SVRC provided individual and group counseling, support, advocacy, referrals, and accompaniment to medical, legal, or other community services. These services were for victims of sexual assault and “concerned persons,” who may be secondary victims (Program Director, 1988b, 1989c, 1990). The providers of these services were primarily the undergraduate student volunteer counselors, who completed state mandated training for sexual assault counselors, including 48 hours of classroom training, 10 hours post training, and 12 hours of in service training annually (Sexual Violence Program, 1990). Volunteers were protected from testifying in criminal court cases referencing a sexual assault case. Student volunteers provided a minimum of four hours a week that included staffing the crisis line and office shifts (Sexual Violence Program, 1990). The goals of the SVRC were to support victims, educate the campus community, and prevent sexual assault. These central purposes were overshadowed by the administrative and leadership disputes among university staff, particularly between the SVRC program director and director of counseling services, who disagreed over the role of students.

In her memos to the director, the program director accused the director of cutting student peer counselors, along with general programming disputes (Program Director, 1988a, 1989b). In her response, the director wrote that the proposed changes under consideration for SVRC included transferring student clients, who were seen by either the program director or student peer counselors, to the university counseling service’s staff (Director, n.d.-b). The director proposed to eliminate the 24-hour SVRC hotline and forward calls to the local county crisis line (Director, n.d.-b). The tension between the program director and director of counseling services focused on whether the SVRC should incorporate student volunteers in providing direct victim services, advocacy, and education. The director questioned the ability of students to serve as peer counselors and wanted the SVRC to focus on broader issues, like education, instead of direct victim services provided by student volunteers. The program director and the SVRC student volunteers felt undermined by the director and believed that victim services, particularly by student peer counselors, were essential to the SVRC’s programming. As their dispute over the SVRC’s program administration escalated, the memos indicate that the program director and director of counseling services struggled to communicate professionally. In 1988, the program director filed her first grievance against the director and cited her frustration that decisions pertaining to the SVRC were made without her consent (Program Director, 1988a). In a 1989 memo to the director, the program director wrote, “I refuse to be treated in such a disrespectful, shaming and unprofessional manner. I demand that you treat me as the Program Director [of the SVRC], which I am” (Program Director, 1989b). In her memo, the director responded, “[the program director’s] leadership history has been marred by conflict” (Director, n.d.-b).

Both the program director and director wrote opinion articles in the campus newspaper. In an article, “Changing program is breaking promise,” the program director (1989a), in accusing the director of eliminating the campus crisis line and peer counseling services, wrote, “[since the SVRC’s beginning] More than 1,300 people have used the counseling and on-campus phone services. Sixty-two volunteers have been trained as Sexual Assault Counselors and have provided more than 10,000 hours of volunteer services.” The program director (1989a) argued that many students who sought services from the SVRC came specifically to speak with a peer counselor versus a therapist or agency staff member. In a response article, “Program should try to focus on prevention,” the director (1989a) wrote that her critique pertaining to student counselors included the concern over the “duplication of services,” given that the university’s therapists could provide the counseling by licensed, hired professionals.

While the program director and director publicly argued, student activists refused to be silent in their protest of the SVRC losing its focus on the student body. Between 1989 and 1990, students organized and protested against the university in support of the program director, who supported active student participation in the SVRC. The students expressed outrage with the university’s limit of services to victim survivors and lack of collaboration with the student body. While campus administration disputed amongst each other, students organized demonstrations and formed a student advocacy group. These students agreed with the program director in believing that student peer counseling, along with providing 24/7 crisis counseling, was necessary to address sexual violence on their campus. For example, the student group wrote a fact sheet that was distributed across campus outlining the history of the SVRC, the present debates, and key campus stakeholders to contact. In regard to the controversial issue of peer counseling, the SVRC volunteers wrote, “Many students feel most comfortable initially talking to someone like themselves in age, status, and experience, especially about dating” (SVP Volunteers, 1989). The student group spoke to the student association and shared their concerns with the university president and the board of regents (Friends of SVP, n.d.; Student A and Student B, 1990; Minnesota Student Association, 1989). The student volunteers met with a local conflict and change institute to explore options for resolution (Sexual Violence Program, n.d.-a, n.d.-b; “History Document,” n.d.). Student volunteers presented over 1000 signatures to the president supporting the program director’s grievances and the re-instatement of peer-counseling and the crisis-line (Friends of SVP, n.d.). The student association passed the “Sexual Violence Program Resolution” in support of the SVRC (Minnesota Student Association, 1989). Despite the advocacy of the SVRC’s student volunteers, the program director resigned in 1990 (Sexual Violence Program, n.d.-a).

These documents constructed by students demonstrate strong grassroots efforts and a demand for the university to return its focus to protecting the student body. In a 1990 letter to a board of regent member, SVRC volunteers wrote, “As you know, the Sexual Violence Program was initiated by students and has enjoyed the wide student and community support” (Student A and Student B, 1990). Students shared their opinions in the campus newspaper and voiced their frustration with the administration. In a 1990 article, one student accused the president of listening to other sources of information regarding sexual violence on campus instead of student concerns (Student G, 1990).

In response to the student organizing, the president established a new task force in 1990 to evaluate the SVRC and sexual violence on the campus (Task Force on Sexual Violence and Campus Security, 1990, 1991). By 1991, a new program director was appointed, and the SVRC became a separate entity from the university counseling services. The new task force explicitly adopted the following definition of sexual violence, “Any sexual behavior between two or more people to which one person does not or cannot consent” (Task Force on Sexual Violence and Campus Security, 1990). In 1991, after the SVRC adopted the recommendations of the task force, the president appointed a new committee to oversee the recommendations (Campus Safety and Security Committee, 1991). Through the advocacy of students, the campus created new policies, task forces, and supported the SVRC’s development.

Conclusion and implications

In conducting research on campus sexual assault, Fisher et al. (2010) write, “Those conducting research risk the criticism that the supposed scientific data they produce are, in reality, a product of their feminist ideology” (p. 5). This historical analysis has presented the findings directly from primary sources that have shaped the story of how one university addressed the impact of the anti-rape movement. However, the intersection of feminism and the anti-rape movement cannot be separated. In fact, students involved in this movement have been called, “rape-crisis feminists” (Fisher et al., 2010: 21) and “guerrilla feminists” (Roiphe, 1993: 10).

Nonetheless, feminists used this movement to continue the conversation in regard to rape, gender relations, and issues of power and control. In providing a history of rape, Brownmiller (1975) harshly writes, “Women are trained to be rape victims. To simply learn the word ‘rape’ is to take instruction in the power relationship between males and females” (p. 309). Fisher et al. (2010) highlight the intersection of feminism and the history of studying sexual violence. This intersection has led to significant implications, including those who question the findings of Koss’s study (Fisher et al., 2010; Roiphe, 1993). However, Fisher et al. (2010) write that critics of Koss’s study and other sexual violence studies raise important concerns regarding the accuracy of measuring rape, methodological questions, and the definitions of rape. In arguing that while feminist ideology has intersected with the research, Fisher et al. (2010) write, “In the end, political debate is not the issue. Rather, what matters are the lives of college women that, each day, are affected in small and sometimes large ways by sexual victimization they endure” (p. 109).

The development of the SVRC at the university was spurred by student activists leading the anti-rape movement. Disagreements occurred early in the SVRC’s history, as leadership disputed the role of students in addressing sexual violence. Refusing to be victims of leadership debates, students organized marches, 24-hour rape-free zones on campus, candle-light vigils, signed petitions, and advocated with student and administrative groups (Sexual Violence Program, n.d.-a; Sexual Violence Program, n.d.-b; “History Document”, n.d.; Friends of SVP, n.d.). While administrative leadership created policies, task forces, and committees, the students provided the direct service, advocacy, and crisis support. Consequently, future research needs to identify the historical role of student activism in addressing sexual violence on campuses and the on-going ways in which students are leading the anti-rape movement. Advocates and mental health professionals, such as social workers, must bear witness to history and learn from the student activism that is voicing how to end violence.

Since the 1970s through the 1990s, students have been resilient activists in creating change and organizing on campuses to address sexual assault. Movements and demonstrations from Take Back the Night, the Clothesline Project, Denim Day, to student performances, such as the Vagina Monologues, as well as student groups of End Rape on Campus, Know Your IX, and Safe Campuses Now have developed. Other campaigns that have emerged include It’s On Us, me too, and, most recently, Time’s Up. Changes have occurred on the US policy scene, with reauthorizations to VAWA (1994) in 2000, 2005, and in 2013. In 2011, The US Department of Education wrote the Dear Colleague Letter that listed institutions of higher education who were out of compliance in their mishandling of sexual assault cases (United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2011) and, in 2014, President Obama established the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. While the Obama administration’s initiatives were not necessary directed at student activists, student activists responded and formed local responses to It’s On Us.

While these actions demonstrate recognition of sexual violence and the role of student activists, the Trump administration and the Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, demonstrate a blatant disregard for victim-survivors and student activists. The Trump administration has brought uncertainty to the protections of Title IX, and Trump himself has been accused of sexual misconduct (Cooney, 2017). On 16 November 2018, Secretary DeVos presented new rules to Title IX that decrease the accountability of campuses who have pending sexual misconduct investigations along with increasing the rights of defendants instead of the victim-survivor. Former Vice President Biden was quoted in The New York Times with the following response:

We brought this hidden violence into the public eye, and we saw schools change their practices as a result. These protections made students safer and gave parents a peace of mind. Today’s proposed rollback would return us to the days when schools swept rape and assault under the rug and survivors were shamed into silence. (Green, 2018)