092622_GYS_2022_ONLINE

22 GU I D E to Y E L L OW S P R I NG S | 2O22 – 2O23 “was written with the intent that it apply only to those deemed to be guilty of rape,” and it was understood that policies concerning the assessment of guilt and other matters would need to be developed. AdCil asked the Womyn of Antioch, the Com - munity Standards Board (CSB), Community Council (ComCil) and the Sexual Harassment Committee to present their final recommendations on the policy to AdCil. The Womyn of Antioch put suggestions from the other groups into a new draft of the proposal, and a definition of rape was written, which was endorsed by the CSB and ComCil. The Dayton Daily News reported that AdCil accepted the proposed policy in November, though it intended to revise parts of the policy before finalizing it. AdCil then formed a subcom- mittee to determine how to implement the policy, which it saw as one of the major areas needing work. AdCil approved a revised Sexual Offense Policy on Jan. 29, 1991. The Sexual Harassment Committee would handle the cases not covered under the Sexual Offense Policy, including sexual harass - ment that was not persistent or insistent. The college added a workshop on the Sexual Offense Policy to new-student orientation and a self-defense class to the physical education offerings. Karen Hall, the first advo - cate hired under the Sexual Offense Policy, later wrote that many men on campus felt there was an anti-male climate at Antioch when the policy was first adopted. “A lot of people, particularly men, said that if they expressed any hesitancy against the policy, they were perceived as pro-rape,” Hall wrote. Some male students left Antioch because of the policy, Hall reported, and some of the women who had engineered the policy also left, worn out by the effort it took to get the policy adopted. AdCil approved another revision of the policy in March 1992, and in June the Board of Trustees approved the policy. The policy defined “con - sent” as “the act of willingly and verbally agreeing to engage in specific contact or conduct,” and required the initiator or any type of sexual contact of conduct to obtain the consent of the other person or persons involved at “each new level of physical and/or sexual contact/conduct in any given interaction.” The policy defined sexual offenses, including sexual imposition and “nondisclosure of a known positive HIV status” or of a “known sexually transmitted disease.” The policy created a sup - port network for those report - ing sexual offenses, including a Sexual Offense Prevention and Survivors’ Advocacy Program, and advocate, peer advocates and victim/survivor support groups. A Hearing Board com- posed of Antioch community members was created to hear cases of alleged offenses and to determine the appropriate “remedy” for an offense. Rem - edies include the enrollment in a treatment program for sexual offenders, suspension, expulsion or termination of employment, and changing the offender’s co-op sequence to prevent him or her from being on campus at the same time as the victim of the offense. Appeals of Hearing Board decisions would be decided by an outside arbitra- tor, whose title was later changed to a “hearing review officer.” Antioch received extensive national and international press coverage for the Sexual Offense Policy, most of which came in 1993 and 1994, well Unique, trendy women’s fashion and accessories 249 Xenia Ave. 937-767-8800 A gift shop with something for everyone. 235 Xenia Ave. 937-767-9349 MOVIES ON THE BIG SCREEN! “The best place to watch a movie together” • Showing today’s best art house films and documentaries with special retrospectives and classics