Michael Bradley, Executive Editor


Think of any heroic cause to which Notre Dame is committed: Many come quickly to mind. Whether it is something highlighted in the “What Would You Fight For?” videos or a public issue that Notre Dame advocates, characteristic of all such efforts is Notre Dame’s pride in its ability to assess problems analytically and deal with their “root causes.” Notre Dame prides itself on looking past superfluous elements, flashy statistics and stereotypical opinions and getting at the heart of the problem.

That’s why Notre Dame’s blindness to the root causes of a particularly concerning problem–sexual harassment, assault and misconduct on campus—is so surprising.

Or, perhaps, it is not entirely surprising.

Last week was Sexual Assault Awareness Week (SAAW) at Notre Dame. Sponsored chiefly by the Gender Relations Center, SAAW endeavors to inform the campus community about the resources available to those who have experienced sexual assault, and to educate the community about how to prevent, report and address these tragedies.

Associate Vice President for Student Services and Deputy Title IX Coordinator William Stackman emailed a “Sexual Conduct and Campus Climate Questionnaire” survey to each student, because “in order to make improvements in our educational programs and sexual violence prevention efforts, the University must have student input.” The student body president also sent all students an email reminding us that the purpose of the survey is to “gauge…what students think about our campus climate, and what else can be done to make Notre Dame free from sexual harassment and sexual violence.”

These efforts should be presumed to be sincere and in good faith.  We should expect that Notre Dame really does want to eliminate sexual assault, harassment and misconduct.  But is Notre Dame committed to doing what it would take to effectively combat these wrongs—to get at their “root causes?”

Instances of sexual assault are not isolated or random. They don’t occur haphazardly; in fact, they are the artifacts of a certain culture.  Nearly all instances of sexual “misconduct” on this campus are symptomatic of deeper circumstances that exist in a certain physical, social and moral environment. This environment has been aptly termed the “hookup culture,” the named foe of so many earnest reform efforts at Notre Dame.

Now, the most obvious way to eliminate these byproducts of the “hookup culture” is to disable, or at least commit to fighting vigilantly against, the “hookup culture” itself.  This can be done in a number of ways. We could start by acknowledging the simple yet taboo truth that the primary problem with the “hookup culture” is that hookups are wrong and unhealthy in themselves, and that they lead—unsurprisingly—to sexual assault, harassment and misconduct not infrequently.

For two years I served on our student government’s Gender Issues Committee.  We often discussed the “hookup culture” at our meetings. Nobody on that committee ever suggested that hookups themselves were at the heart of the “problem of gender relations at Notre Dame.”  Rather, the common claim was that hookups “handled poorly” led to problems. Someone listening in to one of our meetings would conclude that “consensual” one-night stands (even between two persons who had been drinking heavily) were no problem at all. Unless, that is, only one of the two parties regretted his or her actions the next morning, or one of the two parties actually developed feelings for the other in the aftermath of their episode of physical disclosure.

In fact, many students, including those who are in a position to officially give voice to their opinions, believe that Notre Dame gender relations are “weird” or “awkward” because of policies such as parietals and single-sex dorms. Many students even say that the Catholic understanding of sexuality, marriage and love is a source of gender tensions at Notre Dame, rather than the solution to those problems.

The administration sometimes seems just as confused as the students. Year after year, one earnest official after another soothes the parents of first-year students each August by assuring them that their children will become a family at a place at which “sex is meant for marriage” and “students will form authentic relationships grounded in an appreciation for faith,” or something like that. Parents are assured that parietals and single-sex dorms help to foster such relationships, both platonic and romantic. Parents are assured that Du Lac’s alcohol policies exist to enforce and encourage healthy social activity within the residential community.

What these parents see and hear on Frosh-O weekend is not what their kids experience for the subsequent four years of their young lives. It’s not even close.

Both the students and administration have committed to a cultural tightrope act: They want to eliminate sexual misconduct in the legal sense without really cracking down on the moral sexual misconduct that naturally gives rise to the former type. They want to evoke positive public perception from all corners—Catholic and secular alike—an aspiration which has not served Notre Dame well recently. They want Notre Dame to be a well-respected research and Catholic university while also remaining the sort of school to which alums can send their kids knowing that they will not only receive a stellar education (and at least a technical exposure to Catholicism) but will be able to “have a good time” as well.

Why do Notre Dame administrators not see that they can effectively disable the hookup culture in residential environments by sending a message about the sexual environment here? That would be an easy enough message to convey: instruct resident hall staff that violation of Du Lac policies will actually be punished according to the standing rules.

Based upon my experience living on campus, it seems that the point of having rules like Notre Dame has about drinking and sexual behavior is not to cultivate affective maturity in its students. It is not to establish an expectation that students live according to the law of love embodied in Catholic sexual teaching. The point of the rules is simply to have rules, to which Notre Dame can point as evidence in response to the occasional searing, external Catholic eye as proof of the university’s commitment to cultivating a Catholic culture on campus, especially in regards to sexual behavior. Notre Dame knows how this game works, and itplays it rather effectively.

Few people on campus seem to be serious about cultivating such a culture of sexual integrity.  One is former Gender Relations Center Interim Director Dr. David G. Moss.  In his Observer columns he advocated gender relations properly rooted in the dignity of human sexuality. I credit the individuals in the administration, faculty, staff and student body who do everything in their power to evangelize, by word and personal witness, a culture that treats sex as a commodity. But not nearly enough is being done.

Last spring, I sat down to lunch with one of the university’s associate vice presidents, a man highly invested in Notre Dame’s commitment to Catholic character, to discuss my thoughts on the university.  (We met at his invitation). As I talked to him about my concerns with the social and gender relations climate on campus, he responded by saying something very similar to this: “We’re in a unique position here. On the one hand we want to witness to the Catholic faith that inspires our vision for the university. On the other hand, we don’t want to be perceived like an Ave Maria, or a Franciscan [University].”

What precisely about Ave Maria or Steubenville is not worth imitating when it comes to the culture of sexual morality?  Is Notre Dame worried that some high-achieving high-school seniors will opt for another school if they come to think that they cannot have “fun” here?  If so, and if the kind of “fun” these seniors seek is sexually immoral and contrary to the type of servant leaders the university claims to want to educate, then perhaps these students should choose another school.

Another perspective enables the “hookup culture” and its sexual assault derivative: the view that since “college kids will be kids” and are going to drink and hook up anyway, Notre Dame may as well foster the safest environments possible for them.  Better they mess up here on campus than off-campus, where they could get into real trouble. This mentality is condemnable. We may as well say, “well, kids are going to have sex regularly anyhow and therefore seek out contraceptives. Why don’t we just offer them at St. Liam’s? It’ll be more convenient for them that way, and they’ll only have to walk about 5 minutes.”

Until Notre Dame understands that the Church’s invitation to live chastely is the solution to the problems of the “hookup culture,” surveys like Stackman’s will continue to find a place in our inboxes, and will continue to yield little fruit. They aren’t likely to help until Notre Dame commits to practicing what it preaches.

The Church more than any institution or any university official wants to see an end to sexual crimes of every kind. More than that, though, the Church wants every man and woman to experience the joys of living a chaste, integrated love and invites them to consider a vision of sexuality that promotes authenticity. The Church has patiently held out to us its “solution” for age-old moral, social and legal problems of “gender relations” for millennia. It’s time that Notre Dame lent a closer ear.

Michael Bradley is a junior philosophy & theology major who dwells in Dillon Hall. Contact him at mbradle6@nd.edu.