Board to Vote on Several Key Issues, Next Up: Sexual Harassment Policies

The Seattle School Board will be having their regular Board meeting tomorrow night. The one item they put in the Consent Agenda is for the two updated policies on Sexual Harassment; one is for students and one is for staff. 

I see a disconnect between what students are asking for and what the district/Board is giving. The district/Board need to actually explain what they can and cannot legally do.

The proposed revisions include:

• Changing the title of Board Policy No. 3208 “Sexual Harassment” to “Sexual Harassment of Students Prohibited”; this reflects WSSDA’s recommendation to have separate policies for students and staff.
• Creating Board Policy No. 5011; same rationale as above.
• Adding language in Policy No. 3208 to emphasize the District’s commitment to student safety, wellbeing, and support of students; the Task Force has strongly emphasized the need for this additional language.
• Adding language to Policy No. 3208 to emphasize the District’s commitment to offering complainants appropriate, individualized supporting measures that are designed to ensure student safety and wellbeing; the Task Force has strongly emphasized the need for this additional language. 
• Adding language to Policy No. 3208 to emphasize that the District and schools will take proactive steps to prevent sexual harassment from occurring, which may include a variety of methods; the Task Force has strongly emphasized the need for this additional language.
• Updating the definitions of sexual harassment listed in Policy No. 3208 to incorporate current state and federal definitions.

These are all good things. 

But one important statement to start with is the first paragraph of this updated policy:

The district prioritizes the safety and wellbeing of all students at school and while participating in school activities.

At school or at a school activity. Many of these assaults take place off campus and not at a school activity. But students want action, no matter where these incidents occur.

Under "Student Benefit", we see:

The primary benefit to SPS students is additional supportive language and clarification on the District’s need to provide tailored next steps to each complainant, which will help foster a supportive educational environment that promotes the wellbeing of all students. The updates to Policy No. 3208 include clearer language and examples on ways in which the District, and schools, can and will take proactive steps to prevent sexual harassment from occurring; as was stated by many students throughout the Task Force, this is currently an area that needs improvement by the District and doing so would highly benefit students by contributing to the reduction of sexual harassment in District academics, programs, and activities.

Let's just take the case of the student walkout at Lincoln High School. Here's what they said they wanted:

During Friday’s rally, students presented four clear demands: consent training twice in high school, clearly outlined punishment for sexual assault, a designated person students can report sexual assault to, and a more positive environment for victims.

I don't see it specifically in the new policy but as part of "ensure student safety and wellbeing "it would seem like consent training twice in high school should be doable so check.  A designated person to report assaults to? Check. A more positive environment for victims? Check.

However, "clearly outlined punishment for sexual assault?" The students would have to define "punishment" that would probably have to come from the legal system, not the district. I think students think any student with only an accusation of sexual nature can summarily be kicked out of their school. The district cannot do that without legal cause.

This would be a good time to explain to students the U.S. legal system because this statement from the Lincoln students cannot stand:

“the Class of 2024 does not want someone accused of a crime–regardless of their guilt–to be the face of our class.”

The very first pillar of our legal system is innocent until PROVEN guilty. The district cannot become a defacto legal system unless they want to get sued. There are ways to exit a person from leadership without accusing them of a crime.

The district also cannot allow students to use HIB tactics against an accused student. The district has said this and that should be made clear. I think the one thing that students could do is the old Amish way - shun that student.

The district should also take the time to explain to students that when you start drawing lines - either you believe him or you believe her - it puts tremendous pressure on all students. There could be students who don't know either the victim or her alleged attacker; how can they be expected to just line up one way or the other?

I think the district is loathe to say what they can't do because they know students will be upset. But I would think that not treating them like children might be a good first step. Educating them on the American legal system as it pertains to this subject is another step. 

But I don't see either thing in this updated policy. That may come when the Superintendent creates the adjoining Procedure for these policies but I have to wonder if students will think this is enough.

The district prioritizes the safety and well

• b

eing of all students at school and while participating in school activities.