The 1992 January/February issue of Feminisms did a piece on “radical activism” that took place on OSU campus. The Association of Women Students (AWS) took part on a national Day of Action to encourage congress to pass The Violence Against Women Act, which included “funding for rape facilities and calls for campuses to keep centralized records of sexual assaults” (Romig, 15).  AWS used attention grabbing tactics to get people on campus aware of their cause. AWS members participated in guerrilla theater all around campus—on the Oval, in the Ohio Union, and at the comer of 15th Avenue and N. High St. In their demonstration or skit, a woman would be verbally harassed by a man and she would yell at him to leave her alone. They would then tussle a bit, where eventually the man would pin her to the ground and hit her. Then women from the group would rush over and push the man off, as they chant protest slogans. A member of the group would then explain to the crowd their purpose and cause, urging them to call congress members as they pass out fliers.

AWS members defended their nontraditional “shock value” method, claiming guerrilla theater was a powerful tool in eliciting strong reactions and attention from passerby’s. The article cited that members received mixed responses from people, ranging from cheering

AWS members preform in guerrilla theater on OSU campus

when the man was pulled off; men yelling, “why don’t you protest something worth while?” , and utter indifference.  One group member indicated that indifference was even worse than outright resistance, because at least there was discussion with those who yelled in protest. However, members reported being pleased with the Day of Action, and over 100 universities took part in activism around this day.

Works Cited

Romig, Melissa. “Radical Activism on Campus.” Feminisms [Columbus] Jan.-Feb. 1992, 5th ed., sec. 1: 15-17. Print. http://hdl.handle.net/1811/78015

Speaker at Rally against rape at OSU

In October of 1977, about 500 people gathered on The Ohio State University campus for a WAR sponsored rally in protest against the alleged rape of a lesbian by three men on the Oval that occurred in that same month. The woman did not report to the police to avoid publicity, according to a WAR spokesperson. At the rally, there were speakers from various organizations, including the Columbus chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW), Central Ohio Lesbians organization,  The Women’s Action Collective, and Women Against Rape (WAR). Speakers criticized the lack of outspokenness from dorm residents. One speaker criticized the large sums of money being poured into parking lots on campus, yet funds for women’s programs and organizations against rape were scarce. Another speaker demanded an end to victim blaming and putting the responsibility of keeping safe on women. Several speakers spoke to the intolerance and ignorance present on campus towards lesbian and gay individuals, where the perpetrators said they were showing the woman implicated “what men are like”.

Works Cited

Acker, Cynthia J. “‘Rape Is Violence’: 500 Protest at Rape Rally.” The Lantern[Columbus] 25 Oct. 1977, Front Page sec.: 1. Print.

During The Ohio State University’s liberal arts study abroad program to The University of Oxford in the summer of 1989, five women students charged the dean of students and administrative officer of the program, Geoffrey Chapman, with sexual harassment, while one of the five reported rape.  One woman initially reported a rape complaint to the Thames Valley Police, although she later withdrew the complaint.Geoffrey Thomas, Director of Oxford External Studies, who had fired Chapman, reportedly attempted to cover up the incidents, by refusing to turnover a copy of the Oxford sexual harassment policy  when the students involved wanted to formally file a complaint against Chapman.  After all five women reported complaints to Ohio State and Oxford officials, Chapman was fired, and the liberal arts foreign exchange program was cancelled for the next summer.

However, in the following months, students expressed concern that the investigation process was taking too long and that OSU was not proactive enough in dealing with the case, suspecting an attempt to protect the relationship between the two universities. Several students criticized the fact The Lantern referred the case as a “Sex Scandal” in a previous headline, as the rape of the woman is a crime, not sex, and that the “only scandal is that fact OSU has done nothing about it” (Boyd et al. 5). OSU officials attributed any delay to long distance and summer months, the most inactive time of the year for universities. Charles Hermann, acting vice provost of international affairs, wrote a letter to Oxford the November following the incidents inquiring about conducting a formal investigation, but  he deemed the response from Oxford as “unacceptable”. Hermann then called for students to help draft another letter to Oxford, yet students questioned the impact that the next letter being drafted with student’s statements would have after six months since the end of the program, and how inaccessible it would be for Chapman to receive another job in education.

After pressure from students, including one woman who was involved with the rape case, President Jennings then promised to endorse the letter requesting a criminal investigation from Oxford with the students’ testimonials, after Oxford had refused to accept anonymous testimony. Oxford promised to appoint an investigator in the letter, although this did not happen until much later. Jennings appointed two women to investigate how the University handled the case, although they did not have experience with sexual harassment cases.

When Oxford issued its report on the investigation, it contented that the implicated Ohio State student had consensual sex with Chapman because they engaged in “sexual intimacy” on a few occasions, including going skinny dipping together with two other OSU students. The report claimed that since the criminal charges were dropped, “no allegations of rape is now being made by any member of the OSU party”. The student refuted this report. The other four students’ allegations were investigated, where Chapman admitted to incidents of sexual harassment, but he denied the rape charge.

In April of 1990, a 24-hour emergency number is established for student and faculty who are studying abroad and in need of assistance. In January of 1991, The Office of International Affairs announces the establishment of “strict student guidelines” for studying abroad starting the following month. The guidelines include information about “cultural sensitivity”, or the “behaviors, dress, and communication that are unacceptable in foreign countries”.  Also included in the guidelines are how get help if sexual harassment occurs and how to notify OSU.

Students reported to be disappointed with the new guidelines and corresponding workshops, including a student involved in the case. Calling the guidelines “Neanderthal”, she did not think cultural differences had a correlation in addressing sexual harassment abroad. Other students cited that these guidelines blame the victim/survivor. Yet, others contended that the guidelines would help students understand culture and the process in responding to sexual violence.

As in other high profile sexual violence cases, there are clear contradictions in the perceived effectiveness in  addressing these situations from students and administration.

Works Cited

Bennett, David J. “OSU Offers Guidelines for Traveling Abroad.” The Latern [Columbus] 30 July 1990, Front Page sec.: 1-2. Print.

Boyd, Laura, Kelley McGrath, and Meghan Shelby. “Letters to the Editor: Students Speak Up.” The Lantern [Columbus] 19 Feb. 1990: 5. Print.

Editorial. “Placing Blame: Officer Should Consider Victims First in Policy.” The Lantern [Columbus] 1 Feb. 1991: 4. Print.

Leib, Kurt L. “Official to Study Scandal.” The Lantern [Columbus] 16 Feb. 1990, Front Page sec.: 1-2. Print.

Leib, Kurt L. “OSU Denies Delay of Rape Case.” The Lantern [Columbus] 12 Feb. 1990, Front Page sec.: 1-2. Print.

Leib, Kurt L. “Oxford Sex Scandal Continues.” The Lantern [Columbus] 30 Mar. 1990, Front Page sec.: 1-2. Print.

Leib, Kurt L. “Reply Comes from Oxford: Investigation Starts When Oxford Gets Student Statements.” The Lantern [Columbus] 14 Feb. 1990, Front Page sec.: 1-2. Print.

Leib, Kurt L. “Scandal Confronted: Letter Mailed to Oxford Requesting Formal Investigation into Sex Scandal.” The Lantern [Columbus] 2 Mar. 1990, Front Page sec.: 1-2. Print.

Leib, Kurt L. “Students Seek Sex Scandal Invesigation.” The Lantern [Columbus] 2 Feb. 1990: 1. Print.

Leib, Kurt L. “Women to Review Oxford Investigation.” The Lantern [Columbus] 23 Feb. 1990, Front Page sec.: 1. Print.

Maines, Kristi. “British Sex Scandal Sparks Strict Student Guidelines.” The Lantern [Columbus] 31 Jan. 1991, Front Page sec.: 1-2. Print.

Maines, Krsti. “OSU Students Unhappy With New Guidelines.” The Lantern [Columbus] 5 Feb. 1991, Front Page sec.: 1-2. Print.

Staff, and Associated Press. “Student Maintains Sex Was Unwilling: Oxford Report Inaccurate Says OSU Student.” The Lantern [Columbus] 9 Aug. 1990, Front Page sec.: 1-2. Print.

Zucker, Leslie. “Sex Misconduct Plagues Oxford Study Abroad Program.” The Lantern [Columbus] 17 Aug. 1989: 9. Print.

In 1996,  OSU graduate student Brad Fryman put on a one man show, “The Unredeemed” to being awareness to date rape, with a discussion following the play. The play was written for him by New York City play wright, and it was part one of a trilogy. Fryman plays the character of Marty, a Midwestern college student. The point of the play, Fryman explains, is to promote dialogue on a issue that is often “swept under the rug” (Rashid, 13). Fryman references the statistic of the one rape reported to OSU in the 1995-1996 school year, which he says, does not seem accurate. Residence Life sponsered he event, in the effort to promote discussion on date rape while also aiding “in the student’s social development outside of the classroom and that includes making students aware of what date rape is” (Rashid, 13).

Lantern piece covering the one man show, “The Unredeemed” (1996)

Works Cited

Rashid, Shelly. “Play Puts Spotlight on Date Rape Issue.” The Lantern [Columbus] 10 Apr. 1996: 13. Print.

Sexual violence is an issue that is deeply personal to me, and to many other women. I have noticed that this issue is almost universal among women around campus and the world as awhole–a seemingly inescapable universal–whether you find yourself in your own home or visiting a foreign country or walking through your community. Throughout this research project  on the history of sexual violence at Ohio State University thus far, I found myself feeling an overwhelming sense of familiarity. With the narratives I examined, I began to draw parallels to the present in almost every one I read. I still see high-profile rape cases against athletes  in which institutions turn a blind eye all too often, such as the Steeb Hall case. I still see victim/survivor-responsibility policies and not enough policies that attempt to address the root of the problem, like the street light efforts of the 1960s. I still see Universities juggling maintaining a certain image and doing the right thing in sexual violence cases, similarly to the Oxford University sexual harassment and rape case. I still see women’s oriented spaces on campus needing to fight for a real voice and funding, just like WAR did.

While it is profoundly disheartening and enraging that so many things seem to stay the same in regards to sexual violence on campus and elsewhere, it is simultaneously profoundly encouraging to know that women (and men) historically refuse to be bystanders. For example, I wrote about the ongoing efforts of Take Back the Night, an anti-sexual violence group that fights for the reclamation of safety of women on OSU campus and around the world since the 1970s. The Rape Education and Prevention Program of the 80s has remnants today, as sexual misconduct awareness training will become mandatory as part of first-year orientation for incoming students next year. OSU students are asserting their power with  clear demands and demonstrations, as seen in the strike of 1973 with the Women’s Liberation list of demands and the current coalition efforts of Reclaim OSU.

So how do we grapple with the fact that, despite our efforts, sexual violence is still very much a reality for people on campuses and beyond? The unfortunate truth is that  sexual violence may never go away, not as long as we live in a patriarchal, capitalist, misogynist, racist society that refuses to address this issue. But does that mean we should give up? Absolutely not. There is encouraging change happening all around us through grassroots organizations, student and faculty resistance,  and community outreach, which has laid the groundwork for the path towards a sexual violence free world. I think this project can help give context to that groundwork for future anti-sexual violence endeavors, as history can provide insight into how we can grow to be campus and society that values women and shows compassion for all. Until then, there is work to do.

In the following years of the Steeb Hall rape case of 1983 where six athletes were accused of rape of an OSU sophomore that concluded with no indictments and mild university repercussions, sparked a growth in efforts in rape education and prevention.  In March of 1983, a month after the incident, President Jennings approved a campus-wide rape prevention and education program after three anti-rape protests pressured him into it (Dill,1). The Center for Women’s Studies and Women Against Rape (WAR) would work together in implementing workshops and other preventative measures. WAR had been doing such initiatives for the last decade, but only then were they given the funds to expand their efforts (Schimpf, 1).

The rape education and prevention program called for an evaluation of the effectiveness of rape education, an evaluation that Mary Margaret Fonow and Laurel Richardson, employees of The Ohio State University at the time, and Virgina Wemmerus, a researcher at the Ohio Department of Mental Health, were interested in conducting. A few years after the implementation of the rape education and prevention program, Fonow and colleagues began the study, which was orignally published in 1988 (Pierce, 3). Below is a clip of an interview conducted with Mary Margaret Fonow, in which she provides insight into the effectiveness of rape prevention and education through the study, titled, “Feminist Rape Education: Does it Work?”.

The study consisted of 14 OSU introductory Sociology classes (a sample of 582 students), in which the classes were randomly assigned either a video, workshop, or no education. Students that were assigned the workshop or video were pretested with a questionnaire on rape, and were post-tested three weeks later (Fonow et al., 113). Using the “rape-myth scale”, which essentially included the who, what, when, where, and whys of rape, Fonow and colleagues found that  students who participated in the workshop or video had considerably lower rape-myth acceptance scores than students who received no rape education or only received the pretest (Fonow et al., 117). Likewise, students who were given the pretest only had lower rape-myth acceptance scores than those who had no education, even if only by a small percentage (Fonow et al., 116).

The study found that, even though rape education can help change perceptions of rape for the better, men had typically had higher rates of rape-myth acceptance scores and gender conservatism (Fonow et al., 118). Fonow and colleagues proved that even one questionnaire makes a difference in rape education, which is promising for future rape prevention education efforts that continue to be needed to this day.

Both in 1983 and 1996 (among many other years), women of The Ohio State University and the Columbus community came together to “take back the night”. Take Back the Night is an international organization whose mission is to “end sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual abuse and all other forms of sexual violence”, through events

Fig. 1: Women Take Back The Night protest, 1983

Fig. 2: Women Take Back the Night protest, 1983

like the marches in 1983 and 1996 (TBTN). “Take back the night” refers to the refusal to accept the lack of sense of safety women often feel when walking in the dark, especially alone, because of the constant (subconscious or not) fear of sexual assault.  Both protests invited men to participate in discussion, but they were asked to refrain from marching.

The 1983 protest consisted of about 600 women holding candles and signs and banners, marching from Central High School  to a rally at the Riverfront Amphitheater. The event was sponsored by “Women Against Rape (WAR), the Federation for Progress, and it drew support from more than 20 other organizations, including the OSU Women’s Law Caucus and OSU Women’s Services” (Willke, 1983).

Fig. 3: A “Take Back the Night” flyer posted in The Lantern for the 1996 protest

The 1996 Take Back the Night protest consisted of an estimated 300-500 women, with the Rally beginning at Sullivant Hall, proceeding with a mile long march, and ending with a candle light vigil at Sullivant Hall. The vigil displayed life size silhouettes and plaques to tell the stories of real women who had died of violence. Speakers from OSU’s Women’s Student Services, Columbus Area Rape Treatment Program, Diversity Ohio, Asian Community Outreach Program, and Columbus Women’s Chorus were among the participants of the protest.

Here are some images of Take Back the Night  protests in Columbus throughout the years…

Fig. 4: 1978

Fig. 5: 1979

Fig. 6: 1987

Fig. 7: 1989

Fig. 8: 1993

Fig. 9: 1994

Fig. 10: 2002

Works Cited

Hannah, Amy M., and Nichole Negulesco. “Do a Little March, Make a Little Noise, Take Back the Night.” The Lantern [Columbus] 23 May 1996: 2. Print.

“History – Take Back the Night.” Take Back the Night. Take Back the Night (TBTN), n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2016.

Willke, Jeanne. “Women Protest Rape in Symbolic Night Rally.” The Lantern [Columbus] 16 May 1983: 1. Print.

Photos:

Fig 1 and 2: Deadhead, Daisy. Ancient Black-and-white Photos of My Hometown (Columbus, OH) Take Back the Night March (1983). 1983. Http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-history-project-part-2.html, Columbus.

Fig. 3: Hannah, Amy M., and Nichole Negulesco. “Do a Little March, Make a Little Noise, Take Back the Night.” The Lantern [Columbus] 23 May 1996: 3.

The 1980’s marked a shift in efforts in changing men’s role in rape education on The Ohio State University campus.  Randy Gebhardt, previous associate administrator of OSU’s Rape Education and Prevention Program, covered a story in The Lantern in 1984 on the first rape education workshop for men under the university’s (almost) year old program.  The Rape Education and Prevention Program had established a task force to create “one of the first and most extensive programs [on university campuses] intended to help men understand rape”, with workshops as the main aspect of the program (Gebhardt, 4).

Gebhardt describes the first workshop, titled “Rape Education for Men”, where 27 men participated. Some were interested, some were intimately affected by rape, and many were residence advisers (RA’s); the fact that many were RA’s is important to note because the Steeb Hall gang rape case had occurred only months prior, which sparked discussion about the RA’s adequacy of rape education and handling of rape reports. During the workshop, the men discussed the definition of rape, gender stereotypes, and their experiences with rape. The program intended to “increase rape awareness among men, to broaden stereotyped definitions and to help men become more sensitive to women’s feelings” (Gebhardt, 4).

The feedback on the workshop was overwhelmingly positive, with some men inquiring about future presentations and ways to assist the program. Gebhardt mentions that Rape Education and Prevention Program planned to create support groups and education programs for men who have been raped or are concerned about being raped, in light of the fact that “at least six men were raped by other men at Ohio  State [in 1983], although only two of these were reported to the police” (Gebhardt, 4).

Works Cited

Gebhardt, Randy. “Enlightened Men Can Help Stop Rape.” The Lantern[Columbus] 15 Feb. 1984: 4. Print.

Headline of The Lantern article covering the protest against the handling of the Steeb Hall case

As described in the previous post of this blog, the Ohio State University’s handling of the Steeb Hall gang rape case was not without its contention. A group of 50 protesters picketed an Ohio State basketball game in March of 1983 in response to the questionable tactics OSU had employed during and after the case. The group claimed no specific affiliation to an organization, rather, they identified themselves as “concerned students”.

OSU “concerned students” picket an OSU basketball game

The protesters held signs reading messages such as “Athletes not above the law”, and “Women are fair game at OSU”, while chanting “No more games, we want names” in response to the lack of disclosure of details of the case. The leaflet passed out at the game by the group listed demands such as:

• Release more information about the suspects
• Investigate the matter thoroughly and prosecute to the fullest extent, regardless of who any of the perpetrators are
• Establish communication between concerned groups
• Re-establish educational programs on rape prevention, self-defense, and counseling for Residence Advisers (RA’s) on the frequency of rape

According to the spokesperson of the group, their primary goal was to force OSU to disclose the names of the suspects. Although they did not blame anyone for the prolonged investigation, they did find it unnecessary to wait for the investigation to end after basketball season. The protesters were entirely peaceful.

Works Cited

Gaborcik, Michael J. “Group Protests OSU’s Tactics; Says Rape Inquiry Was Mishandled.” The Lantern [Columbus] 4 Mar. 1983: 1. Print.

The Steeb Hall case of February, 1983, involved a female sophomore at Ohio State University who was allegedly gang raped by six men, five of whom were football and basketball players, in her dorm room. One witness, a resident of Steeb Hall, reported seeing an OSU football player and suspect, push a woman out of the dorm room about 15 minutes after the time the rape was reported to have occurred.¹

The Resident Advisers (RA’s) were told to stay silent on the case, according to a RA. The anonymous RA interviewed in The Lantern‘s  “University Police Continue Investigation: OSU Athletes may be Involved with Alleged Gang Rape” piece said it is common for residence officials to not name rape, cover up cases of sexual assault, and not cooperate with the police.¹ In other words, the university was actively attempting to keep the case secretive.

After less than 20 minutes of deliberation, a Franklin County Court grand jury did not indict any of the suspects involved with the Steeb Hall case, because the jury did not find probable cause to indict the men for rape charges. Ohio State conducted its own investigation of the alleged rape case, with the harshest penalty being suspension.  The University Judicial Panel  found three of the men not guilty, three of them guilty for disciplinary misconduct, two of whom were suspended from university, and one was put on academic probation. There was no mention as to what the men were found guilty of.²

Marlene Longecker writes about the questionable aspects of the investigation³

The Dean of Student Life at the time, Michael Livingston, suspended the men’s sentences in response to their appeals, (a week before he was to announce the fall football roster), and they were consequently able to participate in their sports.

The woman who prosecuted was no longer attending OSU at that time.

After the case hearing, OSU released a statement saying it was a “relief” that “no criminal activity occurred on our campus”.³