One of the major defenses of the Non-Academic Misconduct Policy (NAMP) comes from individuals and organizations who believe that such a policy is necessary to deal with cases of on-campus, usually in-residence, gendered violence, sexual harassment, criminal harassment, and stalking.  The argument, as has been discussed publicly at meetings and in articles by both students and administration regarding the policy, claims that NAMP would offer a strategy for the university to address such issues, without having to rely on the drawn out processes of the Canadian legal system.

One of the major defenses of the Non-Academic Misconduct Policy (NAMP) comes from individuals and organizations who believe that such a policy is necessary to deal with cases of on-campus, usually in-residence, gendered violence, sexual harassment, criminal harassment, and stalking.  The argument, as has been discussed publicly at meetings and in articles by both students and administration regarding the policy, claims that NAMP would offer a strategy for the university to address such issues, without having to rely on the drawn out processes of the Canadian legal system.

We, the undersigned, feel that the current conversations citing sexual harassment in residence as an exemplary case for the implementation of a Non-Academic Misconduct Policy (NAMP) are extremely problematic, and in fact misogynst in of themselves, because:

a) it implies that gendered violence, sexual harassment, criminal harassment, and stalking is not a criminal offence and should not be treated as such,

b) it offers no recommendations for broader community resources or campaigns that address issues of gendered violence, sexual harassment, criminal harassment, and stalking,

c) it polarizes the discussion about the policy, resulting in the demonization of those who oppose the NAMP as being misogynst because they are not supportive of a strategy to address gender violence on campus, and

d) it assumes that the lengthy process of the Canadian legal system is a barrier to true ‘justice’ and not a crucial part in assuring due process with regards to legal matters.

Furthermore, dealing with harrassment via quasi-regulatory processes is in fact, cheap justice and provides no restorative or transformative resources to address the heteronormative culture of gendered violence in residences. While conscientiously wishing to stray from a complete endorsement of the Canadian legal system as an impartial, objective arbiter of justice, it is important to note that students, faculty and administration at Trent are not trained in processes of law, and therefore should not be employed in positions as judges or juries.

We encourage students and administration who make such arguments in support of the implementation of a Non-Academic Misconduct Policy, to reconsider the limits of the argument, the policy, and commonly conceived notions of ‘justice’.

Susanna Ashley, MA Candidate, Centre for the Study of Theory, Culture, and

Politics

Gillian Balfour, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology

Davina Bhandar Assistant Professor, Canadian Studies

Stacy Douglas, MA Candidate, Frost Centre for Canadian and Native Studies

Sarah Hamilton, MA Candidate, Centre for the Study of Theory, Culture, and

Politics

Marg Hobbs, Associate Professor and Chair, Women’s Studies

Sarah Kardash, MA Candidate, Centre for the Study of Theory, Culture, and Politics

Marg McGraw, Assistant Professor, Women’s Studies

Mary Jo Nadeau, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology

Deborah White, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology