Can Consent Training End Sexual Violence On Campus?: Students, Consent and Sexual Ethics

The ongoing, potentially worsening problem of sexual violence and harassment on university campuses has emerged in the last few years as an area of concern. Female students have been identified as one of the most likely groups to experience sexual violence and this violence is exacerbated by contemporary student cultures around alcohol consumption and gendered and sexual norms. University campuses have also become central to prevention efforts in many countries due to their relatively accessible populations and an ability to implement social policies at an institutional level.
Many of these measures are based around promoting or educating students about sexual consent, and particularly notions of affirmative consent, expressed as ‘Yes means Yes’. However, there exists little research around sexual ethics with students exploring whether consent is in fact the best way to tackle cultural problems of sexual violence on campus. This paper makes use of existing literature on sexual ethics and focus group research undertaken with Australian university students to argue for an approach to the problem of sexual ethics on campus that is broader than simply focusing on training programs in sexual consent. It identifies a number of limitations to the consent framework and argues that prevention efforts need to more seriously engage with broader cultural norms around heterosexuality and gendered relationships.

Civic engagement and the arts and humanities: a UK perspective

Higher education in the UK is in a state of flux and this is having particular impact on the humanities. On the one hand the pressure to support a STEM agenda is seen by some as forcing higher education down a narrow economic agenda, while government requirements for assessing the social and economic impact of research has raised concerns about excessive utilitarianism and a downgrading of ‘disinterested enquiry’. This paper argues that these concerns may be misplaced. The research impact agenda has the potential to promote more socially engaged research and more democratic engagement in the creation and dissemination of knowledge. In the US concerns about the democratic role of higher education more often seem to focus on the student experience. By contrast, in the UK concerns about citizenship education and democratic participation more often focus on high school students, perhaps because university students are more likely to have a formal role in institutional governance. The paper concludes that the papers in this forum have a very American feel, but the issues they address resonate on a much wider scale.

Civic engagement in a divided society: the role of Queen’s University Belfast in Northern Ireland

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of a university in a society emerging from decades of political violence and to show ways in which public engagement can help promote democratic practice and contribute to the strengthening of peace. Our understanding of the concept of public engagement follows the UK National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement definition:

'Public engagement describes the myriad of ways in which the activity and benefits of higher education and research can be shared with the public. Engagement is by definition a two-way process, involving interaction and listening, with the goal of generating mutual benefit .'

The case study is provided by the example of Queen's University Belfast. We will begin by examining some of the history and context of the university, then discuss the political and social context of Northern Ireland, before going on to examine some of the publicly engaged work being carried out by Queen's and consider how this might be taken forward.

Foreign Policy as Ethics: Toward a Re-Evaluation of Values

This article notes that while ethics is increasingly talked of in foreign policy, it remains a blind-spot for FPA. It argues that this must be rectified through a critical approach which conceptualises foreign policy as ethics. The first section examines how even constructivist approaches, which are highly attuned to the intersubjective sphere, still generally avoid dealing with morality. The second section looks at the possibilities and limits of one piece of constructivist theorizing that explores the translation of morality into foreign policy via ‘norms’. This demonstrates the problems that a constructivist account, with its tendency toward explanatory description without evaluation, will always face. The final section argues, through an examination of EU foreign policy (from 1999-2004) and its innovative use of ‘hospitality’, that FPA must critically reassess the value of the norms and principles by which foreign policy operates in order to suggest potentially more ethical modes of encounter.

Ethics, power and space: International hospitality beyond Derrida

This article argues for the importance of hospitality in discussions of international ethics, suggesting that, while Jacques Derrida’s thought on the concept ought to be central, we also need to go beyond it. In particular, Derrida’s focus on the threshold moment of sovereign decision has the effect of reinforcing International Relations’ focus on the state as the only ethical actor and space. In contrast, this article suggests that we think of hospitality as a spatial relation with affective dimensions and a practice that continues once the guest crosses the threshold of the home. Conceived as such, hospitality reveals a constitutive relation between ethics, power and space, which directs us to the way hospitality produces international spaces and manages them through various tactics seeking to contain the resistant guest. This argument is illustrated through an examination of perhaps the most urgent of contemporary international ethical spaces: the refugee camp.

The Dark Side of Nudging: The Ethics, Political Economy, and Law of Libertarian Paternalism

Libertarian paternalism, as advanced by Cass Sunstein, is seriously flawed, but not primarily for the reasons that most commentators suggest. Libertarian paternalism and its attendant regulatory implications are too libertarian, not too paternalistic, and as a result are in considerable tension with ‘thick’ conceptions of human dignity. We make four arguments. The first is that there is no justification for a presumption in favor of nudging as a default regulatory strategy, as Sunstein asserts. It is ordinarily less effective than mandates; such mandates rarely offend personal autonomy; and the central reliance on cognitive failures in the nudging program is more likely to offend human dignity than the mandates it seeks to replace. Secondly, we argue that nudging as a regulatory strategy fits both overtly and covertly, often insidiously, into a more general libertarian program of political economy. Thirdly, while we are on the whole more concerned to reject the libertarian than the paternalistic elements of this philosophy, Sunstein’s work, both in Why Nudge?, and earlier, fails to appreciate how nudging may be manipulative if not designed with more care than he acknowledges. Lastly, because of these characteristics, nudging might even be subject to legal challenges that would give us the worst of all possible regulatory worlds: a weak regulatory intervention that is liable to be challenged in the courts by well-resourced interest groups. In such a scenario, and contrary to the ‘common sense’ ethos contended for in Why Nudge?, nudges might not even clear the excessively low bar of doing something rather than nothing. Those seeking to pursue progressive politics, under law, should reject nudging in favor of regulation that is more congruent with principles of legality, more transparent, more effective, more democratic, and allows us more fully to act as moral agents. Such a system may have a place for (some) nudging, but not one that departs significantly from how labeling, warnings and the like already function, and nothing that compares with Sunstein’s apparent ambitions for his new movement.

Ethics in sexual behavior assessment and support for people with intellectual disability

Sexuality is an issue of equality, rights, and ethics, especially when it comes to the sexuality of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. This paper offers a discussion of ethics related to the assessment and intervention supports of sexual behavior in people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. A brief history of sexuality and disability is presented. Issues of sexual abuse of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and the laws related to sterilization, pornography, sexual rights, and consent are explored. Finally, specific ethical concerns related to intervention by behavior analysts in the realm of sexual behavior are examined.