Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘response’

This post is in response to a recently published article which quotes me regarding the current situation regarding sexual assault at JMU. Below is a longer response, but in case you don’t want to read it/just want the essentials this is where you can see it.

Per the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics I have told the author of the article and her editor that I expect my quotation to be removed from the article, as well as any information relating to me, any information from/about our interview, and any information relating to my correspondence with the author. I also have informed the author that they do not have my permission to publish any other information from the interview or from our correspondence as they were given under false pretenses and are not valid for use in an article.

I was lied to about the content of the article, my words were misrepresented, and the author very clearly failed to do some fact checking. The quoted statement is in reference to a larger system. Indeed directly before the sentence the author chose to quote, we were talking about the larger failures in a system that allow for things like this to occur. I simply chose to reference a specific situation and specific person in the administration because it had already been reported on, and was an appropriate example for what I feel is a larger systemic failure to address sexual assault on college campuses—in short it was an example appropriate for a larger audience, appropriate for an article that I was told would focus on that systemic failure.

To the author of that article: I am severely disappointed. This is a serious issue that requires serious work. Lifting quotations out of context and ignoring the wishes of those who you interview  just so you can get a headline is, at the best, problematic and, at the worst, entirely unethical. To those of you who may have seen the article I am referring to and been upset, confused, or hurt by my statement: I am sorry. It truly was taken out of context. I would be happy to talk to you more about it if you have questions.

I hope that we continue to #StandWithButters, to make our voices heard, and to ensure that JMU becomes a safe place for its students.

*******

If you have been following news updates regarding sexual assault here at JMU, and the handling of Sarah Butters’ case in particular, then you may have seen an article pop up where I am quoted. If you haven’t I don’t suggest you do (for reasons I am about to talk about). But if you have I want to clear up some things about that article, and about my quotation in particular.

The author of this article reached out to alumni via twitter, asking for interviews. Katie Lese, who began JMU Alumni Against Sexual Assault, and myself both responded; hoping to present ways that alumni are beginning to make our voices heard. After the reported contacted me, I responded by cc’ing Katie in to the conversation. I made it very clear throughout the process that I did not feel comfortable being the only person interviewed. Initially both Katie and I were supposed to be interviewed together on Thursday, but due to communication issues weren’t able to. Because we were available at different times on Friday, I did not think much of agreeing to be interviewed earlier in the day. Both Katie and I expected that she would be interviewed later in the afternoon.

9:30 Friday morning rolled around, the author of this article called me, and I sat around drinking coffee thinking that the interview was going rather well. Before the interview I asked what the article would be focused on and was told that it would be addressing the larger issue of sexual assault on college campuses and community response. A perfect chance to talk about what JMU AASA hopes to accomplish.

After the interview I was told by the reporter that I would receive a copy of it before it was posted, to ensure that my words were captured correctly, that I was okay with it, standard journalistic procedure. At about 11 o’cock Friday evening I began to feel like something was up. Even if the reporter was on the West Coast that is only 3 hours behind us. I went to the website and saw that the article was, indeed, posted. It was not on the systemic problem of violence against women on campus, it was about JMU; it was not about community response, it was about the daily show.

Not only was I lied to about the content of the article, my words were misrepresented (also the author very clearly failed to do some fact checking, but that may not be the biggest issue here). Those who know me will know that I am not afraid to call people out and I will admit that sometimes I can be confrontational with those I feel have perpetuated an injustice. That is what my statement may look like. If you read the quotation it may seem like I am pointing fingers and calling people out, and yes I am questioning a single person. But it is also important to recognize that I am doing so in reference to a larger system. Indeed directly before the sentence the author chose to quote, we were talking about the larger failures in a system that allow for things like this to occur. I simply chose to reference a specific situation and specific person in the administration because it had already been reported on, and was an appropriate example for what I feel is a larger systemic failure to address sexual assault on college campuses—in short it was an example appropriate for a larger audience, appropriate for an article that I was told would focus on that systemic failure.

This issue requires us to talk about some uncomfortable things, it requires us to call each other out for actions big and small, it requires growth that may be painful for some. Part of holding each other accountable, though, is also holding accountable those who attempt to tell our story, and that is what I am attempting to do here. To the author of that article: I am severely disappointed. This is a serious issue that requires serious work. Lifting quotations out of context and ignoring the wishes of those who you interview  just so you can get a headline is, at the best, problematic and, at the worst, entirely unethical. Per the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics I have told the author of the article and her editor that I expect my quotation to be removed from the article, as well as any information relating to me, any information from/about our interview, and any information relating to my correspondence with the author. I also have informed the author that they do not have my permission to publish any other information from the interview or from our correspondence as they were given under false pretenses and are not valid for use in an article.

To those of you who may have seen the article I am referring to and been upset, confused, or hurt by my statement: I am sorry. It truly was taken out of context. I would be happy to talk to you more about it if you have questions.

I hope that we continue to #StandWithButters, to make our voices heard, and to ensure that JMU becomes a safe place for its students.


Alex Davenport

feminism, Sarah Butters, response, daily show, USA Today College, interview, sexual assault, JMU, Alex Davenport

Read Full Post »

My wonderful friend Elizabeth Chenevey, who was one of the writers of this previous post, wanted to expand on her initial section.  When we wrote the post it was initially designed to be an article in our campus newspaper, so of course our space was limited and we didn’t all get to say everything we wanted to.  With that, here it is:

I’m really fucking tired.
I am tired of the hate and ignorance that has been spewed here on JMU’s campus these past few weeks (from any of the sides).
I am tired of feminism being labeled as a breeding ground for “man-haters,” “whores,” and of being anti-mother and a threat to family values.
I am tired of choice being taken away from women and their bodies.
I am tired of hearing my peers claim, “I’m all for women’s rights, but I’m not a feminist.”

I AM A FEMINIST. Hear me say it. Say it for yourself. Scream it if you have to. It is an empowering statement. It is a statement that has given me the confidence to speak for myself and develop my own voice.

Anyone can be a feminist. Feminism is about empowerment and equality—not about making women the same as men as Emily Buck claims in her editorial. I don’t want to be the same as my male friends; I recognize and celebrate our differences, but that does not mean I do not demand as much respect as them (or from them). I love our differences, but I don’t want to be like them—I like being a woman.

I love my body and I respect and trust it.
I choose not to take the pill as I don’t like how my body feels on it but I support women who do.
I am not anti-mother-I one day would like to be one and I do not think I could ever get an abortion but I am glad the option is there for women who do have to make that incredibly difficult choice.
I have only had sex with one person but I support women who choose to have multiple partners (safely of course).

Do you see a pattern here? This is all about choice. I choose to be a feminist because I need to be able to have a say in my own life and in the society in which I live. And I do not appreciate people like Miss Buck condemning this choice (and therefore any other choices I make within that framework) as it is mine. The choices we make are personal, and my choices being lumped with those of others’ belittles them and feminism’s message. Feminism respects individual choices (I respect Miss Buck’s decision to not be a feminist even though I may not agree with her reasoning) and it has given me the strength to make my own informed decisions and speak out in defense of them.

Read Full Post »

It has been…over two months since I last blogged, and I swear I have a good explanation, really!  I’ve been in the middle of my senior thesis, which has actually been going quite well; but has also wreaked havoc on things like blogging.  All of that to say, though, I am back!

Today I wanted to talk about an event the JMU Republicans put on called “The Failures of Feminism.”  You can read about the event at The Breeze‘s website, here, and actually, please do, because what I’ll be saying is in direct response to that article.

Okay!  So, first, let me say that I am sure Kate Obenshain is someone who I could talk to at a cocktail party, or an art opening, or some other place where I could engage in small talk.
This painting is a really neat critique of the utopian ideal.
I agree, you know, it’s probably commenting on how feminism is currently ruining society!
So maybe not…But really I am sure I could talk to her; but I absolutely hate her politics.

So, a lot about what Obenshain said made me mad, but I wanted to focus on one thing specifically:

What do you think nice Christian girls feel getting onto campus and seeing the LGBT-whatever banner?” Obenshain asked. “These girls need support.”

Really, Mrs. Obenshain?  Christian girls need support?  I would agree with her if she was criticizing the patriarchal pressure inherent in hook-up culture, but according to her that is the Feminists fault.  No, Christian girls need support because of the LGBT-whatever banner.”

First, it is not LGBT-whatever.  It can be LGBT, LGBTQ, LGBTQQA, LGBTQIQA; the acronym can be many things but it all stands for people who have been represed because of their sexual orientations and/or gender and/or sex identities.  And a lot of the time that oppression has occurred at the hands of Christians.

Second, and less of a rant, JMU has 24 Christian organizations on campus, and 2 organizations aimed directly towards the Queer community (their are about 6 feminist organizations, including those 2).    So, I would say, there is plenty of support for young women who are Christians on JMU’s campus.  Many of the Christian organizations, if not all, have something like a women’s Bible study where Christian women are both encouraged and trained as leaders.  All of that to say, Obenshain’s claim just doesn’t hold water.  Christian women are getting support, and to suggest that the spectre of queer people (supported by 2 organizations) would somehow necessitate Christian women getting more support is simply preposterous.  AND (this is a huge and by the way) Obenshain assumes that young women who are Christians will not also be queer, so we are left to assume that by “Christian” she means: “neo-Conservative, Right Wing, Socially Conservative, heterosexual women.”  Those are a lot of qualifiers.

Finally, I just want to end with a final point.  Obenshain has a lot to thank feminism for.  Why is she able to be taken seriously as a political figure?  Why is she allowed to vote?  To appear on TV as a credible commentator?  To speak in the public sphere?  The answer is feminism.

Yes feminism does have failures, at times organizations have neglected certain groups, have fed into systems of oppression, maybe certain feminists could even be said to have hurt the cause of Women’s Liberation.  But the attitude in which this critique was offered, and the blatant patriarchy which was embraced is, to be kind, not helpful; but sadly not something I am particularly surprised at.

Read Full Post »