"Campus safety": Gendered Oppression within U.S. Institutions of Higher Education

Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed was originally published in 1968, but the book was not published in English until 1970.  Since its original publication, the book has been translated into eighteen languages.  His book was revolutionary in that it challenged the relationship between teacher and student, which rejected the prevailing Subject-object relationship in favor of a symbiotic relationship of freedom between a “teacher-student” and “student-teachers” (Freire, 1970, p. 61).  Within the context of our classrooms, I struggled to find an application between Freire’s groundbreaking approach to critical pedagogy and gender.

One could argue that this struggle exists because we have at last reached a truly egalitarian state of education; this argument is myopic at best and dangerously oppressive at worst.  In fact, Freire (1970) stated that “because of [oppressed individuals’] identification with the oppressor, they have no consciousness of themselves as persons or as members of an oppressed class” (pp. 27-28).

Where is the oppression?  Outside of our safety of North Texas, one can encounter stories of the education and women’s rights activist Malala Yousafzai.  Malala is a teenager who was shot in the head by members of the Taliban.  Her crime was recognizing and fighting for her right to education.

In North Texas, we do not face the same plight as Malala and women like her.  Instead, our struggle with gendered oppression of education is far more subtle. 

"Math class is tough!"

Bringing the conversation back onto the turf of my classmates and colleagues, I would like to situate Freire’s critical pedagogy within the context of something far more ubiquitous in our day-to-day educational experiences: the perpetuation of rape culture, masked as “campus security.”  As a female, I feel like I have been subjected to this for years: “don’t go out alone at night,” “make sure there is at least one male with you,” “stay away from dimly lit areas,” “don’t let anyone mix your drink,” “don’t wear your hair down—it’s easy to grab,” “don’t wear clothing that sends the ‘wrong message,’” “carry a rape whistle/pepper spray/stun gun.”

Freire (1970) states that

“for the oppressors, however, it is always the oppressed (whom they obviously never called ‘the oppressed’ but—depending on whether they are follow countrymen or not—‘those people’ or ‘the blind and envious masses’ or ‘savages’ or ‘natives’ or ‘subversives’) who are disaffected, who are ‘violent,’ ‘barbaric,’ ‘wicked,’ or ‘ferocious; when they react to the violence of their oppressors” (p. 38).

This was plainly displayed when several New Zealand students responded to Robin Thicke’s chart-topping ditty that mocked the necessity of sexual consent.  Their seething satire nearly replicated the visual elements of Thicke’s music video, but Youtube pulled the video due to its “sexually inappropriate content.” Thicke's music video remained available for users to watch. 

The above video contains language that may be considered inappropriate.

While this oppressive reaction does not come from the education institutions, it still demonstrates the “othering” of those who dissent.  For a more up-to-date example of educational institution silencing the voice of the “other,” a simple Google search can provide you with the University rape scandal de jour, complete with victim-silencing.  Currently, Vanderbilt is the institution in the spotlight.  Unfortunately, this may change before I have the opportunity to publish this.  

The way in which educational institutions promote victim-blaming in the under the guise of “campus safety” mirrors the misguided “humanitarianism” present in what Freire has titled the “banking model” of education.  In this model, he characterizes knowledge as “a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing,” wherein the “gift” becomes the victim-blaming propaganda disseminated by the educational institution or organizations (Freire, 1970, p. 54).  The formula is simple: follow this endless list of freedom-limiting directives and you may be able to avoid being assaulted!  The inverse of this “campus safety” propaganda is nuanced, but painfully real for many victims/survivors of campus sexual assaults: If you are sexually assaulted, it is only because you have done something wrong.

The dissemination of “campus safety” propaganda denies students and “teachers” (not specifically the head of the classroom, but also student organization leaders and the institution’s administration) the ability to engage in Freire’s “problem-posing.”  Instead of allowing all individuals involved the ability to become jointly-involved in critical thinking that challenges the current oppressive structures.  Problem-posing allows teachers and students to critique the status-quo; the “banking model” of education simply presents a singular reality to the students and calls it “knowledge” (or in the case of “campus security,” one may revere this reality as “common sense”). In this “reality,” women are put into the position of potential, if not inevitable, victim.

Until educational institutions allow for a dialogue concerning the prevalence of sexual assault on campus, victims/survivors will continue to follow the path of the “reality” presented through “campus safety” propaganda.  Questions such as “how much did she have to drink?” or “was she walking alone?” will muffle the attempts toward dialogue.

-C.H.