In June, the Daily 49er published this cartoon:
The image is a well-drawn gibe at the long-debated Affirmative Consent Bill, or SB 967. When this cartoon was published, it went along with an “Our View” article, which reflected the Daily 49er staff’s majority opinion about the pending legislation.
The opinion was that the bill was better in theory, than in actual execution. We raised questions about the practicality of the bill’s implementation, and referenced the local media buzz to strengthen our belief that this bill makes a better punch line than legislation.
Today, I personally feel very differently. The bill’s inappropriate nickname stems from one particular phrase that is included in the text of the piece of pending legislation.
“Affirmative consent,” as required for students under this bill when engaging in sexual activity, has students, media and opponents of the bill fooled.
Concerns about keeping the government out of our wallets, and out of our bedrooms are, of course, valid. But I’ve come to realize that this bill is not seeking to legislate the sex lives of CSU students. In fact, it is seeking to protect them.
Jay Jenkins is a student at CSULB, and she is strongly in favor of this bill. In her former position as Secretary for Women’s Affairs with CSULB’s ASI, and in her current position as Chief of Staff for ASI, Jenkins has been a supporter of breaking down the elements of the “rape culture” that lead victims to believe that they are alone.
SB 967 will be a monumental step in that direction. Jenkins, a survivor herself, said that this bill is not about legislating our sex lives; rather, it is about providing students with resources for developing healthy sexual relationships that revolve around affirmative consent, communication and equal power between partners.
Looking for a punch line still? Don’t waste your time, there isn’t one. This bill doesn’t just put a specific label on what sexual consent is; it promotes sexual assault victims’ access to resources, and it also provides a framework for students, administrators, media and the entire CSU to have a conversation about an issue that is oftentimes brushed over because it is “sensitive,” or “controversial.”
Diane Hayashino, Staff Psychologist at Counseling and Psychological Services here on campus, emphasized this last point; she said that even if this bill seems impractical in some way, at least it provides a context for a conversation that needs to be had amongst the CSU, and amongst all levels of education.
It is important that students realize that there is a safety net for us to land on if we need to, and that we have the right to say no at any point. Saying yes does not mean that we cannot change our mind a few moments later, an hour later, a year later.
Dr. Jean Caveness, Assistant Dean of Students at CSULB, mentioned the importance of realizing that sexual assault is not simply a conversation for women to have…there is plenty of sexual assault outside of the stereotypical “man rapes woman” scenario.
I hope our campus can find a way to realize that, all jokes aside, SB 967 is not what it looks like; in fact, it is so much more than we realized.