|
Friends United Meeting |
 |
June 2003
Quaker Responses to Sexual Abuse
By Chrysanthi Settlage Leon
Although the Roman Catholic Church has received the most media attention, numerous communities and organizations, both religious and secular, are now struggling to respond to sexual abuse in their midst. Last June, the Board of the American Friends Service Committee decided that all staff and volunteers working with young people should undergo criminal background checks. This decision mirrors the way many Friends' Meetings/Churches and associations are designing policies aimed at addressing the risks of sexual abuse. While I am pleased that we as Friends (and as a society) may be moving closer to acknowledging the existence of sexual abuse as an "inside" problem — not relegated to "others" — I worry that the current public focus on risks and punishments may be distracting us from other questions that could prove more helpful.
Current policies responding to the threat of sexual assault center on the belief that a good approach is to identify sexual offenders and prevent them access to children and other vulnerable populations. At the state and local level, this has led to widening the range of criminal offenses that require registration with local authorities (many non-violent or so-called "hand-off" offenses such as urinating in public can now require lifetime registration). States require community notification of the presence of these offenders upon release from prison, either passively by providing access to a database upon request, or actively, by posting flyers or otherwise publicizing information about specific individuals. In some states, repeat offenders are subject to civil commitment until they are cured, which can mean indefinite commitment to an institution for an illness that has no widely accepted cure. When Meetings and Churches, Quaker schools or other organizations respond to the threat of sexual abuse, policies are also often based on the premise that we will be protected if we identify former offenders and restrict their access. This usually means potential volunteers or employees will be subject to fingerprinting and criminal background checks. Insurance policies for the institutions may even demand this approach.
One weakness of this approach is that it re-enforces stereotypes about sexual abuse, such as the perception that an abuser is an outsider or some other sort of de-humanized other. This stereotype limits our ability to address sexual coercion and assault within our own families and communities. For example, victims of sexual violence perpetrated by members of their families or churches may not feel able to speak out.
The commonly held beliefs about sexual abuse also rule out the possibility of rehabilitation. This is a particular challenge for religious groups that emphasize God's power to change individuals. The Roman Catholic Church is now struggling to enact a policy that will both protect its members from abuse and acknowledge the possibility of transformation. Quakers have a long history of advocating on behalf of the outcast. As a religious community who believes there is that of God in each person, how will we balance protection with openness?
Whether or not the criminal background approach to sexual abuse prevention works, its ramifications clearly raise many questions, including ones of integrity, privacy, rehabilitation and respect for victims. In my Friends Church, a proposed policy of background checks led to division and outrage. Some members felt that such exploration of our histories is an insult to our Friends' practice of integrity by seeking proof. Some members felt that the proposed checks would violate their right to privacy and that past acts (unrelated to sexual assault) which would be revealed by a background check should not be known to anyone in the Church. Others felt that no measure that might protect children should be left unused, regardless of consequences. Some of those who took this position were individuals who came forward with their own accounts of sexual abuse — these former victims felt that those who advocated integrity, privacy and toleration did not understand the hazards. Variations of this debate are surely taking place at many levels in the Quaker world. We need to be able to discuss sexual abuse openly, with consideration of the opinions and experiences of each of us.
Some Quaker groups take other approaches to the problem of sexual abuse, either in place of or in addition to fingerprinting. These include the creation of general policy statements that address creating healthy relationships between youth and adults or that address the ways to react to sexual coercion.
The following queries might help guide further responses to sexual abuse: How can our Meeting/Church address the needs related to the fear and pain caused by sexual assault? Do we provide an environment in which people are able to share their experiences and seek care and support?
How can we create an environment that demonstrates our concern for the well being of each one of us?
Is the Meetinghouse a safe space where we can put aside the wariness we've learned to carry with us elsewhere?
What do we teach our children about safety and about the way we treat others?
Both within and beyond our own Quaker communities, we have a responsibility to consider the implications of current punitive approaches to sexual abusers. Historically, Friends have helped refocus the debate on criminal justice issues. What messages may we be called to bring now? For example, does community notification leave former offenders open to shaming and scapegoating? Where is the possibility for rehabilitation? By choosing to focus resources on former offenders, we may be missing the chance to address the larger social illnesses that lead to sexual violence.
Beyond healing after abuses and preventing future acts, we need to learn more about the cultural and psychological causes that create sexual abusers and how we can love them and protect them against themselves. We need to organize to take mutual responsibility rather than settle for "throw away" approaches.
Contemporary examples of Friends' involvement in this area may provide some guidance: Individuals, like prison activist Fay Honey Knopp, have pushed us to reconcile Friends' belief in the capacity for change with current punitive approaches to sexual offenders. Activists in the U.S. and Canada are creating experimental groups that work in coalition with police and mental health professionals to re-integrate former sexual offenders into the community.
What other work is being done? I hope that Quakers will find a forum to share attempts to respond to sexual abuse by crafting policies that are both sensible and that reflect our heritage of love for all of our neighbors.
Chrysanthi Settlage Leon is a member of Whittier First Friends, California.
Copyright (c) 2003 Friends United Meeting
Return to June 2003 Contents page