Camille Gamboa
Contributor
In 1998, President Clinton publicly made the term “sexual relations” very controversial. It was his distorted interpretation of this term that led to him lying under oath and eventually to his impeachment.
Pepperdine’s policies on sexual relations (from the student handbook), have the same problem because Pepperdine’s policy-makers also have difficulties with this ambiguous term. They state that “sexual relations of any kind” are to be avoided and that members of Pepperdine’s community should “live consistently with Christian teachings on sexuality.” The brief paragraph on this topic goes into some detail about why it should be avoided, but does not say just what the policy is.
It then goes on to say that “sexual misconduct …may result in disciplinary action.” Therefore, we are asked to live up to a standard that is undefined, and if students fail to do so, they will be punished.
Although it would be difficult, revising these policies to clarify them would benefit Pepperdine’s faculty, resident advisors and students.
It is true that this is a sensitive topic that policy-makers may be uncomfortable dealing with, but resident advisers who encounter it are forced to deal with it at their discretion.
As an RA, one of my duties is to enforce Pepperdine’s rules and document when these rules have been violated. One violation that I encounter when walking-through each of the resident’s rooms (which I do weekly) concerns our policies on sexual relationships. If it is not obvious that the residents are involving themselves in a sexual act, I must use my judgment to decide if the incident should be documented.
Unfortunately, this means that there are incidents that are not documented that may be considered sexual to Pepperdine administrators. Although interpretations vary a great deal depending upon the opinion of the RA, this is the only way that the rule is enforced, causing each student to be held to a different standard.
Pepperdine’s faculty are well aware of the sexual relationships of their students. In fact, in an interview with Sharon Beard, assistant dean of student affairs, she said they know that it is a problem.
Beard said there are certain situations where RAs clearly “know it when they see it.” She also is aware of the “gray areas” that RAs encounter and said they should use their discretion or speak with their resident directors for guidance.
It is true that all rules are open to some interpretation from those enforcing them and this interpretation is unavoidable, but what about the violations that are not “gray?”
If it is so obvious that these are times in which behavior should be documented, and if all residents are going to be forced to adhere to these rules, why not include them in the handbook?
Skeptical students claim that creating such exact standards will provide more opportunities for disciplinary action. They need to remember that with the current policy, anything even close to such a relationship (such as forms of making out) “may result in disciplinary action.” Currently there are no limits to what results in disciplinary action.
As demonstrated by the recent proposal of a University Ethics Statement, a clearly defined mission is important to members of Pepperdine’s faculty. Revising its policies on sexual relationships is just another way to further this mission.
Bringing this topic to light could make students who are in such relationships or who are thinking about engaging in such relationships feel comfortable talking about it with the appropriate people.
Instead of being viewed as a forbidden topic among those in authority and a vulgar topic among students, it can be viewed as it should be — a sacred topic that requires deliberation by both.
11-06-2006