Speaking Freely and Freedom of Speech: Why is Black Feminist Thought Left Out of Ontario University Sexual Violence Policies?

As of January 1, 2017, the Province of Ontario has required all post-secondary institutions to create and maintain a stand-alone sexual assault policy that includes clearly stated complaint and response procedures. This paper brings to bear the influence of Black feminist thought as an analytic tool and politic on the outcomes and omissions of the development of these policies. Analyzing the stand-alone sexual violence policy of the University of Ottawa as a case study, the author conducted a critical discourse analysis with an intersectional lens to determine if intersectionality influenced the policy creation. Findings reveal that policymakers conceptualize gender in a one-dimensional manner, without attention to intersections of sexualized violence with racism and other systems of oppression. A policy with an ill-defined focus on gender can result in a colorblind policy that suggests that the institution should treat all students the same, regardless of systemic disadvantages they might face on the basis of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, or ability. This avoidance can create barriers to reporting. Neoliberalism and the changing university culture are discussed.


Introduction
Violence against women continues to be a problem on Ontario postsecondary campuses. Researchers estim ate that four out of five undergraduate women have experienced dating violence (Canadian Federation of Students 2015). Brennan and TaylorButts (2008) re port that the highestatrisk group for sexual assault is women between the ages of 1524. Senn et al. (2014) report that out of 899 undergraduates surveyed, over 50% of young women experienced one or more forms of sexual violence after 14 years old. Since women are not a homogenous group, many Black feminist writers urge policymakers to use intersectionality as a frame work to highlight how the power dynamics of race, gender, class, sexuality, and ableism interact in the everyday lives of women. Understanding how multiple systems of power interact within sexual violence can give the university a greater ability to give meaningful interventions to women on campus (Bourassa, Bendig, Oleson, Ozog, Billan, Owl, & RossHopley 2017;Wooten 2017).
Despite widespread support for intersectional theory, there has been little change in some Canadian uni versities' approaches to sexual violence prevention and policy, leaving gaps and oversights that affect students' access to resources. e result can be genderfocused sexual violence policies, which tend to be colourblind policies that aim to treat all students the same, regard less of any systemic discrimination they may face due to race, class, sexual orientation, and ability within an everchanging university population (Wooten 2017). So, when prevention campaigns and policies focus on gender only, it negates the many voices of Black femin ist writers who think of intersectionality as both a the ory and politics (Collins & Bilge 2016;Crenshaw 1990;Gray & Pin 2017 Using an intersectional framework, I investigate how the power dynamics of race, class, gender, and ableism may factor into students' everyday lives on campus and how power is replicated in the discourse of the standalone sexual violence policy. In my analysis, I employ a feminist critical discourse approach to in vestigate the University of Ottawa's sexual violence prevention policy. I adopt the understanding that sexual violence is one form of gendered violence, and that law and policy is not equally applied to all per sons within a community (Iverson 2016;Wooten 2017). Since the policy under investigation is named "Policy 67b: Prevention of Sexual Violence," I will be using the term "sexual violence" throughout this pa per. I approach this document in a "policy as dis course" manner as defined by Bacchi (2000) and with an exploratory and inductive analysis. Investigating how the policymakers represent and create the social problem of sexual violence within the policy's dis course, I pay close attention to power relations.
Within the discourse of policy, I examine how the in stitution articulates its stance on the issue, setting lim institutional response to survivors seeking meaningful resources and a safe university campus environment.
e University of Ottawa is a large bilingual research intensive university. Using this university as a case study, I argue that Black feminist thought is not vis ible within the discourse of this standalone sexual vi olence policy despite decades of critical thinking. e University of Ottawa's negation of multiple systems of oppression cooccurring can have serious implications for students seeking help and resources. is paper explores the political, representational, and structural problems with a genderonly focused campus sexual violence policy. I suggest that the reason for this nega tion is due to a preference for neoliberal logic in the university's approach to sexual violence prevention and response, enabling the university to individualize sexual violence and personal safety, increase security measures on campus and sustaining rape myths (Gray & Pin 2017;Trusolino 2017). is course of action prevents the university from addressing the core issues at the heart of sexual violence, which involve investig ating multiple systems of power and control, such as racism and colonialism, alongside gender.

Methods and Methodology
A case study approach allows for a more detailed, in depth analysis that includes the policy creation pro cess's developmental factors and the context of the campus environment (Flyvbjerg 2011;Stake 2008). e University of Ottawa has a student population of close to 43,000 students (58% female, 40% male, and 3% undetermined), is located in a prominent midsize Canadian city, and has been considered within Canadian society as a pillar in the academic and research community since the midnineteenth century (e University of Ottawa, n.d.a). Sitting on unceded and unsurrendered Algonquin territory, this university is a member of the U15, a Canadian researchintensive university collective which con ducts approximately eight billion dollars' worth of re search annually and is one of the largest FrenchEnglish bilingual universities in the world (e University of Ottawa n.d.a; U15 n.d. its to the "problem," shaping a solution, and demon strating what is possible and what is not possible for a survivor who might seek help and resources within the wording of the document (Allan 2008;Iverson 2016, Wooten 2017. Since the policymakers do not exist outside of the campus environment's politics and the societal problem of genderbased violence, I view them as social actors acting within the social constructions of race, class, sexuality, ability, and gender within Cana dian society. In this review of the policy's language, I have given additional attention to any taken for gran ted assumptions, metaphors, and absences within the text to isolate how sexual violence is both constructed and resolved to question further why the policy takes the shape that it does (Allan 2008;Bacchi 1999Bacchi , 2000Iverson 2016). After reading the policy numerous times, I identified themes, created links, and gave meaning to the discourse (Allan 2008;Iverson 2016).

e Case Study
When two highprofile cases of sexual violence in volving the University of Ottawa students' came to public attention in 2014, there was a media and public outcry. In response, the University of Ottawa's Presid ent, Alan Rock, appointed a task force comprised of faculty, administration, students, and community members to review the problem of harassment and sexual violence and provide solutions to help create a respectful university community. e task force con sulted with students, administrators, community based experts, and other institutions during their in vestigation (University of Ottawa 2015 While this definition does not mention that the sys temic forms of oppression like racism, colonialism, sexism, homophobia, class, or ableism can cooccur in sexual violence, the task force notes that they em ployed a survivorcentric, valuesbased, intersectional approach to their analysis of the campus environment as noted in the following statement: "Our task force was also informed by a recognition of the intersection al nature of sexual violence, in which individuals' 'race'/ ethnicity, ability, Indigeneity and socioeconomic status, among other factors, can render them vulner able on multiple fronts" (University of Ottawa 2015, 7). e task force acknowledges in their report that systems of privilege and oppression could be shaped by "colonialism, imperialism, racism, homophobia, ableism, and patriarchy and interactions occur [ing] with connected forms of power" (University of Ottawa 2015, 7). e forms of power include "laws, policies, state governments and other political and economic unions, religious institutions and media" (University of Ottawa 2015, 7). However, the task force did not name universities as part of the interconnected forms of power.
As requested by the University of Ottawa's President, the task force created a series of recommendations. e task force recommended that the university create a standalone sexual violence policy, independent of older sexual harassment and harassment and discrim ination policies. Other recommendations put forth in cluded creating a statement of values which articulates the universities position on respect and equality and committing to providing awareness training to the senior administration, students, and other specified groups (i.e. Bystander Initiatives). e task force also recommended that the university develop an ongoing collaborative relationship with communitybased or ganizations, commit to collecting and making annual metrics on complaints of harassment, sexual violence, and discrimination publically available and provide undergraduate courses exploring the topic of sexual vi olence. An action team was put in place to ensure that the recommendations were followed (University of Ot tawa 2015). ese initiatives comprise the university's current sexual violence prevention campaign.

Atlantis Journal
Issue 41.1 / 2020 62 While these recommendations seem like a positive move to creating a safer learning environment on cam pus, many stakeholders were outspoken about their lack of confidence in the administration to carry out the recommendations of the task force, having experi enced the university acting unilaterally in previous efforts (University of Ottawa 2015). Stakeholders ar gue that the President was not transparent in how he selected and appointed members of this task force. In addition, the stakeholders expressed concern with the task force's use of sanitized language in official docu ments. For example, words like "equality" and "re spect" are used rather than a more direct and appropriate term, such as "rape culture." ese actions to disregard outside input seem to replicate the institu tion's failure to respond to a 20052006 Harassment Working Group's recommendations, made a decade before the formation of this task force. Since the Har assment Working Group's creation was in response to a studentled campaign, the institution's failure to provide more sexual harassment awareness, training, and better policies on campus disappointed many (e University of Ottawa 2015).
In 2016, the University of Ottawa completed the standalone sexual violence policy, apparently with the help of students, faculty experts, and community part ners (e University of Ottawa 2015). e policy is 16 pages long and includes many definitions, such as "sexual violence," "consent," "sexual assault," "sexual harassment," and the "university community." It in cludes a statement of values and is survivorcentric. However, I did not find any mention of race, racism, or colonialism within the policy, and appears to me to be a colourblind sexual violence policy. In other words, I find that the university appears to be framing sexual violence, along with other sexual violencere lated terms, in a manner that is ahistorical, decontex tualized, individualized, and mostly genderneutral, by referring to a universal student within the university community. For example, the definition of sexual viol ence is: "Sexual violence" means any sexual act or act targeting a person's sexuality, gender identity or gender expression, whether the act is physical or psychological in nature, that is committed, threatened, or attempted against a person with out the person's consent. It includes sexual as sault, sexual harassment, stalking, indecent ex posure, voyeurism, nonconsensual condom removing (stealthing), and sexual exploitation. For further clarity, sexual assault includes rape.
(e University of Ottawa 2016, Section 3.2) In reading this definition of sexual violence, it appears to me that the university defines sexual violence as something that exists outside of the interlocking power dynamics of gender, race, class, and ableism. Since the policymakers do not name multiple power systems within this definition, I suggest that the university is framing the social problem of sexual violence as an in dividualized problem. A possible reason for this spe cific framing could be because the University of Ottawa considers sexual violence to be an outliertype event that occurs based on the specific characteristics or actions of the survivor or perpetrator (Quinlan 2017). I find that the individualized definition of sexu al violence conflicts with the stated purpose of the policy which is to "reaffirm" the university's existing commitment to "a safe and healthy campus for work, for study, and campus community life for all members of the university community and its commitment to provide support to those members of the university community directly affected by sexual violence" (e University of Ottawa 2016; Section 1.1).
While the policymakers do not mention race and eth nicity in the wording of this document, I find they use other words that might reference race, culture, or eth nicity in the policy, words like "marginalized," "dis crimination," and "prejudice." For example, the term "marginalized" appears once in the document as part of the institution's values: "e University acknow ledges and combats broader social attitudes about gender, sex and sexuality that normalize sexual violence and undermine women and marginalized group's equality" (e University of Ottawa 2016, Section 4.7). I consider the term "marginalized group" to be quite broad, especially since the policymakers do not define what the institution considers a marginalized group within this policy. Furthermore, I find the wording of this portion of the policy suggests that wo men and marginalized groups are two separate entities that do not exist concurrently, like in the everyday lives

Atlantis Journal
Issue 41.1 / 2020 63 of women of colour. Also, there is no elaboration on what specific attitudes undermine women and margin alized groups, which is essential since this is the only instance that the words "women" and "marginalized groups" appear in the policy.
e term "discrimination" appears in reference to re lated policies. e standalone sexual violence policy works within a framework of policies, including har assment, discrimination, accessibility, and inclusion (e University of Ottawa Human Rights 2019). At the University of Ottawa, the human rights office manages all complaints of sexual violence, harassment and discrimination, and they report to higher levels of the university administration. e purpose of the standalone sexual violence policy is to provide stu dents with transparency, accountability, and reliable and consistent procedures (Shen 2017 Colourblind policies negate a complainant's ability to have the university consider the historical markers of inequality, like gender and race. ese policies falsely assume that everyone is treated equally (Collins 2000;Wooten 2017). Critical race theorists argue that these policies normalize Whiteness and camouflage racism (Collins 2000;Wooten 2017). Colourblind policies remove the historical markers of inequality and the purposeful degradation of women of colour. Collins (2000) notes that the emerging colourblind philo sophy constitutes a new form of racism within institu tions: A new rhetoric of colorblindness that repro duces social inequalities by treating people the same (Crenshaw, 1997) makes it more difficult to maintain safe spaces at all. Any group that or ganizes around its own selfinterests runs the risk of being labelled "separatist," "essentialist," and antidemocratic. e protracted attack on socalled identity politics works to suppress his torically oppressed groups that aim to craft inde pendent political agendas around identities of race, gender, class, and/or sexuality." (121) Colourblind policies are detrimental to women of colour's safety and security because they make it diffi cult for women of colour to organize within the insti tution politically and suggest a different narrative to an illdefined genderonly narrative. Colourblind policies suppress racialised perspectives by avoiding them (Di Angelo 2011). Racialised women can face unique chal lenges to disclosing sexual violence, such as cultural shame surrounding discussions about sexuality and sex, meanwhile disclosing sexual violence is very im portant to positive educational outcomes (Stermac, Horowitz & Bance 2017).

TopDown Approaches to Policy Creation
When policymakers use a topdown approach to policy creation instead of responding to students' needs, the result can be a limited response for surviv ors. More specifically, a genderfocused approach to a university response can inadvertently set the standard of care based on a universal woman's needs, concealing the interconnecting power dynamics of race, class, gender, and ableism. A universal woman tends to be White, straight, cisgendered, middleclass, Western, and nondisabled (Gray & Pin 2017). e outcome of this standard of care is an inadequate response for those needing services that go beyond this universal woman. For example, the policymakers offer little dis cussion on the complexity of consent and the taken for granted norms about who is afforded the right to con sent. e policymakers define consent as: "Consent" means an active, direct, voluntary, unimpaired, and conscious choice and agree ment to engage in sexual activity. ese ele ments of consent must be present, even if alcohol or drugs have been consumed. Consent cannot be given by a person whose judgement is impaired by drugs or alcohol or by other forms of impairment. It is not acceptable for a person who is said to have engaged in sexual violence to use their own consumption of alcohol or drugs as an excuse for their mistaken belief that there was consent. For further clarity, consent: cannot be assumed nor implied; cannot be given by si lence or the absence of "no"; cannot be given by an individual who is impaired by alcohol or drugs, or is unconscious; cannot be given by an individual who is asleep; cannot be obtained through threats or coercion; can be revoked at any time; cannot be given if the person who is said to have engaged in sexual violence has abused a position of trust, power or authority; might not be given properly if an individual has a condition that limits his or her verbal or physi cal means of interaction-in such instances, it is extremely important to determine how consent will be established. (e University of Ottawa 2016, Section 3.2) From this definition, I interpret consent as an isolated act that is independent of the interconnected power dynamics of gender, race, class, and ableism. I under stand that consent is an individual conscious choice, an agreement between two people, that can be given either verbally or physically, and if there is a "condi tion," then the University expects that consent is nego tiated between the individuals involved. However, the term "condition" is not elaborated on within the policy and could mean a variety of things. More importantly, this statement might mean little to women in their everyday lives on campus, as this definition does not provide clarity and transparency as the policymakers aim to do. If "condition" refers to a disability, then this is the only time the policymakers mention it in this policy.
Simplistic depictions of consent within a standalone sexual violence policy avoids the complexity and the frequency of normalized hegemonic social norms to wards who is afforded the ability to consent. For ex ample, Martino (2019) notes that ablebodied people frequently dismiss people with disabilities as not hav ing a right to consent to sexual activity and manage their sexual relationships. In addition to disabled wo men, women who engage in sex work frequently face ignorant attitudes towards their ability to consent to sex or violence (Martino 2019;Ralston 2019). Since many students engage in sex work as a means to pay for their education, this gap in the policy discourse can make it difficult for a survivor to come forward out of fear that responders might be misinformed or un educated on the realities of sex workers rights (Josic 2020). e university's avoidance of language that speaks to the complexity of consent within the policy discourse can create more problems for survivors seek ing resources than resolving them.
Moreover, I learn little about women's needs by read ing the public annual metrics on complaints of harass ment, sexual violence, and discrimination on campus. For example, from September 2018April 2019, the University of Ottawa's Human Rights Office reports 52 complaints of harassment, 13 cases of discrimina tion based on disability, 9 cases of discrimination based on race, 71 complaints of sexual violence, and 173 stu dents requested information regarding accessibility (e University of Ottawa Human Rights 2019). e report provides no further details about the survivor in terms of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
Providing minimal survivor demographic information to the general public appears to be a common practice among postsecondary institutions in Canada. In 2015, Bourassa et al. (2017) investigated 44 English speaking Canadian universities' websites by conduct ing an environmental scan to determine if institutional oncampus violence policies were available and wheth er or not each institution had a reporting system that acknowledged the survivors' ethnicity. e authors found that few universities had that system in place.
Only six universities recorded the gender and/or ethni city of the survivor, and this information was not pub licly available. e University of British Columbia was the only institution in Canada that addressed violence against Indigenous women and had an intersectional response system (Bourassa et al. 2017).

e Influence of Neoliberalism on Canadian University Campuses
Many of the gaps and oversights could be due to the ongoing corporatization of Canadian universities (Quinlan 2017). Some argue that the administration has begun to use corporate strategies to organize the university, using topdown approaches such as lean management and performance indicators such as graduation and student employments rates as a focus (Gray & Pin 2017;Quinlan 2017; e University of Ottawa n.d.b). ese choices are changing the uni versity from a governance structure to a corporate structure where collective bargaining is difficult, strikes occur more often, and the university offers few mean ingful resources to survivors (Gray & Pin 2017;Haiven 2017;Quinlan 2017).
A corporate university comes as a result of reduced government funding (starting in the mid1990s). e need for funding has created a client/supplier relation ship with students, where administrators tend to view students as "revenuegenerating agents" (Quinlan 2017 marketing these programs to attract and maintain stu dents. Some leading academics argue that the campus administrators may be working to generate a percep tion of a university community comprising of affluent White students, which, in turn, maintains the uni versity space as a colonial site (Bourassa et al. 2017;Quinlan 2017). Part of these highfee boutique pro grams include specialty business programs, where at the University of Ottawa's Telfer School of Manage ment costs between $28,000 for the oneyear program and $30,350 a year for a twoyear program depending on the length of the program for domestic students (Telfer School of Management n.d.). is same pro gram is between $64,000 and $68,000, respectively, for international students.
e University appears to be taking a neoliberal ap proach to sexual violence by individualizing trauma, preferring to place the responsibility of women's safety in students' hands (Gray & Pin 2017;Quinlan 2017). According to this logic, sexual violence can be reduced by implementing sexual violence prevention programs that aim to motivate bystanders. One example of such a program is the Bystander Initiative (Gray & Pin 2017;Quinlan 2017). Gray and Pin (2017) argue that these programs of securitization technologies tend to prey on women's fear without fully engaging in an analysis of the multiple power structures and dynamics cooccurring on campus. Some university administrat ors prefer these programs because they can give the in stitution a visible and tangible way to respond to sexual violence (Gray & Pin 2017;Quinlan 2017). For example, administrators can rationalize the financial cost of implementing the program against a predictive and expected decrease in the rates of sexual violence postprogram. However, an increase in reporting rates suggests a safer campus community and an easy cam pus disclosure system (Gray & Pin 2017;Quinlan 2017). Gray, Pin, and Cooper (2019) argue that after a public incident of sexual violence, the university administra tion can create a perception of safety on campus by co opting feminist language within their prevention cam paign and sustaining rape myths based on "stranger danger" and the "racialised other." In turn, the Uni versity places the focus on women to protect them selves, while reducing the onus on the university to provide meaningful resources and interventions for a safer campus.

Stranger Danger and the Racialised Other
Campus officials tend to ignore racism and misogyny within the university community and reinforce these systems of oppression by asking survivors and students to work together to create safety on campus, making individuals responsible for their safety. For example, in 2007, after the Vanier Rape at York University, where two men illegally entered Vanier College dormitory and raped a female student, university administrators and the Toronto Police engaged in messages of securit ization (Trusolino 2017). Campus officials created fear among women by telling them to "lock your doors" and "protect yourself " while doing little to prevent male students from engaging in sexual violence (Trusolino 2017). In this case, the university adminis tration capitalised on a nearby low income racialised neighbourhood, emphasizing rape myths such as "stranger danger" and the "racialised other." e focus on racial fear removed the institution's responsibility to provide a safe place for all students to work and study and undermined the collective efforts of autonomous women. Instead, the university increased campus security measures and reified a universal sexual assault victim by avoiding the vital work of investigat ing the power dynamics of race, class, and gender on campus that are often at the heart of sexual violence.
Furthermore, these messages of the "racialised other" effect racialised male students' ability to live and study on campus without harassment. For example, at the University of Ottawa, media reports brought two sep arate racial profiling incidents to public attention in 2019. In these incidents, the university's paid security force engaged in racist carding practices, apparently upholding "outdated" policies and procedures (Gergyek 2019). In the first case, security asked a ra cialised student skateboarding on campus to produce his student I.D. on the spot. When he could not, he was detained by security for police, as if to suggest that his racialised presence was enough for the security per sonnel to assume an "outsider" status and that he could not be a student at the university (Ahmed

Atlantis Journal
Issue 41.1 / 2020 67 2012). In a separate incident, a second racialised male student was asked to provide proof of address by the University of Ottawa's paid security force when he used his security card to gain access to his residence. e security personnel did not card a White student who entered the residence only minutes before. Bystanders witnessed this incident, verifying the uni versity's racist security measures (Dutil 2020). In re sponse to ongoing racism on campus, the University of Ottawa created an antidiscrimination committee. Campus officials held two town hall meetings, one with undergraduates and another with graduate stu dents to discuss the prevalence and impact of institu tional racism on campus. Since the University of Ottawa is located in downtown Ottawa, close to a shopping centre, multiple hotels, and a men's shelter (Codjoe 2019), some could easily rationalise these se curity measures due to the physical location of the uni versity.
e state also employs the rape myths of "stranger danger" and the "racialised other" in response to sexual violence. By using a neoliberal logic that views indi viduals as responsible for their own safety and wellbe ing, the state obscures its ongoing racist and colonialist actions within the legal system, family services, and law enforcement, systems that continue to fail count less women (Maynard 2017;Razack 2016). Police officers tend to treat women who report sexual viol ence with skepticism and distrust, often with a misun derstanding of the effects of trauma (Johnson 2017). Many officers maintain a very narrow idea of what "real" rape is, preferring to investigate stranger rape over acquaintance rape. e police often act as gate keepers, providing care and protection to some, while neglecting and abusing others (Razack 2016; Ralston 2019). As contemporary agents of the state, the police enforce systemic oppression based on race, gender, sexual identity, and immigration with the threat of for cing "undesirables" into the prisonindustrial complex Black feminist thinkers argue for an antiviolent, anti colonialist, antiracist approach to sexual violence. In order to achieve that, a policy and response system should incorporate a consideration for multiple sys tems of oppression that occur simultaneously in the everyday lives of women. However, the government and some university policymakers tend to dismiss this approach (Jones & Whynacht 2019;Maynard 2017;Samaran 2019). Moreover, while many institutions re port to involve students and sexual violence experts in the creation of the standalone sexual violence policies, as stipulated by Bill 132 (2016), Gray, Pin, and Cooper (2019) argue that some institutions engage in avoidance tactics making it difficult for representatives to attend important consultation meetings. In sum, some administrators fail to consider and incorporate student needs, making student inclusion illusionary. In order to move forward, the university must reconsider this approach.

Conclusion
In this paper, using a large bilingual researchintensive university's sexual violence policy as a case study, I have demonstrated that the policy is colourblind and that attention to the multiple intersections of oppres sion such as gender, race, class, and ableism, while very important, has been negated. Furthermore, I have demonstrated how a colourblind genderfocused policy can have detrimental implications for many wo men and men of colour on campus. As the discourse of the policy articulates the university's stance on sexu al violence, it appears to me that this university chooses to ignore the interconnected forms of oppres sion that women face on campus, preferring to use a neoliberal logic to sexual violence prevention and re sponse. I argue that this logic can result in actions such as implementing bystander training and increasing campus security, which sustains rape myths, such as "stranger danger" and the "racialised other." is course of action enables the university to appear to be responding to sexual violence without having to re spond to ongoing racism, colonialism, classism, and ableism on campus.
Since rates of disclosure about sexual assault tend to be low at postsecondary institutions, I think it is doubt ful that they will improve if the policymakers continue to write policies that are colourblind and individual istic. University administrators must understand stu dents' experiences to improve the disclosure process for

Atlantis Journal
Issue 41.1 / 2020 68 survivors and help change the university culture to a truly safe and equitable space for all.