It seems very relevant that, as mentioned in the article, the statements about the student not locking to door and such were part of the legal defense statement. It's not uncommon for things written in court documents, especially by the defense, to stun anyone with the barest sense of humanity.

Yeah, it looks and sounds horrible, but how surprising is the fact the school is openly admitting they've overstated their case? Maybe the law in Canada is such that those comments can't be used against them, but it certainly seems like they're opening themselves up to greater damages for no purpose other than to show that they actually do sympathize with the victim. Can you imagine that happening in America? It'd be stone faces all the way through.

Of course, that's assuming it's not just a PR move. Hopefully they do recognize ways to make some changes because of this.

Can you please add a trigger warning to the link; I really didn't think it would affect me so badly but I'm feeling really awful and shaky after reading that. Thanks.

I visited this university recently for a conference and wrote about my impressions in my blog: http://clarissasbox.blogspot.com/2009/05/school-without-voice.html

Based on what I observed and what I know about their teaching policies (based on a methodical destruction of the humanities), I'm not surprised (although I am, of course, deeply saddened) that this school's administration would take such an unconscionable position.

The only posiitive thing here is that the reaction of Carleton University Students' Association demonstrates that the college administration has not yet been able to brainwash its students into dumb acquiescence with such barbaric statements.

I also agree with the previous commenter in that the administration's statement makes me shake in rage. How dare anybody say something like this????

Thank you Jessica for bringing attention to this. As a member of another University in the same city I have been following this closely and it is bringing about quite a lot of discussion in the community. There are plans for various demonstrations and other calls to action in regards to the shameful position that Carleton University has taken on what was a very frightening attack for all female students.

I'm not sure if it really is victim-blaming when she first tried to shift blame from her attacker to her school. She's claiming that this is the school's fault, because they failed to provide adequate security (such as keycards/security cameras), and they are claiming that they did provide adequate security which she chose not to use, so they aren't legally liable.

Also, I should call attention to the fact that as the article states, they have also decided to add more security.

I wrote about what I propose to do about this disgusting statement here:

http://clarissasbox.blogspot.com/2009/08/carleton-u-once-again.html

I disagree that this is victim blaming.

If she was suing her attacker, any claim that she failed to protect herself or invited the attack would of course be victim blaming. They also would not be a defense to the claim against the attacker. The attacker is 100% responsible for his attack.

Here though she is suing a third party, the school, for failing to take reasonable care to protect her from the intentional act of someone they had no control over.

In such circumstances, depending on where you are, the law does place some duty on a land owner to protect the people it invites on to its property from the crimnial acts of third parties. At the same time the law generally also puts some duty on people to take reasonable care to protect themselves from the criminal acts of third parties in the context of a negligence claim.

By suing over negligent security, the fundamental issue is what could either party have done to prevent the attack. If she knew who her attacker was and he had money, she could recover from him and he would not be able to claim it was her fault he attacked her. Here the issue basically is who should bear the burden that the attacker has no money and can't pay her damages, the school or her. This will turn on who was in the better position to prevent the attack.

I agree with the above comment by Antinome.

I actually go to Carleton University and work in labs late exactly like the victim here. At the time of the attack, Carleton reacted right away with posted warnings and e-mails sent out to all students.

Security could, of course, be tighter at school as old as Carleton, but the late-night worker program they have in place is an effective one if used properly. When I work late at night, I telephone security and tell them where I'm working, that I'm working alone, and how long I'll be there. They then check on me almost every hour all through the night.

What happened to this woman was an absolute tragedy but I think Carleton defense was a good one. They are not as responsible as the law-suit is suggesting, the attacker is of course, fully responsible.

If I need to get to my bus or my car late (any time of night), we have two services in place. One called footpatrol run by the student association for before midnight requests, and security will drive you to your destination and wait with you after midnight.

I'm also a student at Carleton University. I feel very ambivalent about this story. The statement definitely sounds callous, but it is legalese, which doesn't leave a lot of space for empathy. Also, while Carleton has repeatedly refused to create a sexual assault centre, despite students' vocal support of it, it did step up security considerably following this student's assault.

I don't think Carleton deserves to be completely let off the hook for the statement, but the administration does have a right to a legal defence, and I don't thing they should be demonized for it either. Personally, I feel safe at Carleton, even as a survivor of sexual assault.

I am ALSO a Carleton student (Canadian shout out, woot!), however I have to say, whether the the lawsuit is warranted or not, I believe that Carleton can and SHOULD be doing more to meet student desires. There has been loud support for the creation of a Sexual Assault centre, and that has largely been ignored and pushed aside since the inital promise to make one.

It is not just Carleton however. That year there was a rash of assaults all across Canadian campuses. I personally experienced assault at another university in Northen Ontario that year. I believe that our officials at the school administration have a responsibility not ONLY to provide the most basic security but to also insist on programs for faculty, staff, and students that promote the acceptance, welcoming, and safety of EVERYONE on the campus. It is not enough to say "We put in more lights and cameras," as institutions for higher learning I believe it is the universities moral responsibility to work towards the kinds of social changes that will help end violence against women.

Whatever they are arguing in court, this indicates that Carleton takes the issue pretty seriously:

"Since the attack, Carleton has spent $1.6 million upgrading security on campus, more than tripling the number of video cameras and enhancing the network of emergency phones, improving outdoor lighting, adding five security officers and 20 uniformed student-safety patrollers and installing swipe-card readers for access to the chemistry and biology buildings."

My question is, what measures could she have taken? Have a big strong man supervising her? Or should she have kept a can of mace, a knife, or some other sort of weapon? Most universities prohibit students from carrying any such thing on campus. Lights and cameras aren't preventative measures. Security guards can't be everywhere, nor can you carry one on your back. So what's left?

Shame on you, Carleton. You would be nothing without your students, a majority of which are women. What sense does it make to alienate your largest "customers"?