It has been suggested that the Non-Academic Misconduct Policy (NAMP) is a necessary step in dealing with cases of on-campus sexual harassment. Indeed, the case has been made that potentially problematic situations arise (and have arisen) between romantically linked students living in residence when there is a ‘break up’, but only 50 per cent of the couple understand what exactly ‘breaking up’ entails.

It has been suggested that the Non-Academic Misconduct Policy (NAMP) is a necessary step in dealing with cases of on-campus sexual harassment. Indeed, the case has been made that potentially problematic situations arise (and have arisen) between romantically linked students living in residence when there is a ‘break up’, but only 50 per cent of the couple understand what exactly ‘breaking up’ entails.

You can imagine the outcome in such situations, one person simply doesn’t understand that it is not okay to follow their former beloved downstairs to dinner...every night of the week. Of course, the situation gets more sticky if the poor broken hearted fool, in the name of love and devotion, waits for their long lost outside of their classrooms when lecture is finished.

The administration would have us believe that such a situation presents the ideal moment for the newly instated ‘trial’ policy to intervene. The non-criminally binding policy would provide a perfect opportunity to give the misguided student some clarity about what is appropriate behaviour on campus. If the ‘situation’ persisted, and a complaint was filed, the administration could then give a second and third warning to the student, with the potential of eventual expulsion.

According to conversations with various administrative staff, NAMP fills a hole between the excessively punitive, oft overly bureaucratic Canadian legal system, and the autocratic system of a one woman judge and jury (executed by the Senior Director of Student Affairs and Community Partnerships) that is currently in place at Trent.

The major problem with this argument is of course, that following people to dinner, and waiting for them outside of classes is in fact a criminal offence - it’s called stalking.  Section 264 of the Criminal Code of Canada clearly states that no person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed:

- repeatedly follow the other person, or anyone known to them, from place to place;

- repeatedly communicate with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

- “beset” or watch a place where the other person is visiting, lives or works; or,

- engage in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

The punishment for stalking can be as high as a five-year jail term.

But of course, it has been repeatedly pointed out by defenders of NAMP that this is a quite frequent occurrence in residence. As a result, such behaviour is not of severe enough consequence to merit ‘staining’ a student’s record with the unfortunate trappings of a criminal charge.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to get caught defending the racist, classist, homophobic, moral arbiter that poses as a non-ideological, objective authority that we call the ‘justice’ system.  Indeed, statistics show that although one in 11 non-aboriginal girls (aged 15 to 24), and one in 10 aboriginal girls (aged 15 to 24) report being a victim of stalking in a way that caused them fear for their safety or the safety of someone known to them. There is an obvious lack of faith in the security that the criminal code and its enforcing apparati actually offer. With a remarkably low official reporting rate (about 1/3 of victims officially report), and an even lower level of evaluated ‘satisfaction’ with the judicial system’s handling of their report (only 1/4 reported being ‘satisfied’), it is clear that the criminal code can not be venerated as an effective means of addressing stalking on or off campus. However, I take offense to the university’s systematic erasure of stalking as an offence worthy of criminal investigation and disregard of its responsibility to more fully address it as a larger societal issue. If the university is serious about sexual harassment on campus, would it not follow that at a minimum, we might have a full time human rights officer with a sufficient budget to implement educational campaigns addressing gender violence on campus?   Trent’s currently employed Manager of Human Rights is only contracted on a part time basis - two days a week - with an annual budget of $11,000. Taking these factors into consideration, it seems that the policy is being deceptively propped up as a solution to issues that are actually in need of much more complex consideration.

What’s more, conflating NAMP with women’s safety 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. Particularly disconcerting are the all too convenient conversations circulating behind closed doors regarding the recent sexual assaults at York University, as a way to justify the implementation of this new policy.   Capitalizing on these topical events is exploitative of students’ fear and insecurity surrounding these violent acts.  Furthermore, such a proposal is offensive to individuals’ capacity to understand that a retroactive policy does not provide adequate redress for survivors of assaults.

If the university is serious about combating sexism, stalking and sexual harassment on campus, it should take a proactive approach and not simply rely on a reactionary policy that only deals with situations once they have happened.  Furthermore, administrative staff should stop using stalking and cases of sexual harassment (whether against male, female, or transgendered students) as an example of frequent and unfortunate - yet lawful - behaviour that requires the implementation of NAMP.  Such an approach is misleading, unsophisticated and incredibly harmful to the Trent community and its members.  Just one more reason to question the raison d’etre of the Non-Academic Misconduct Policy.