On the afternoon of Sept. 9, Bucknell released its Annual Security and Annual Safety Report. The report is federally mandated by the Clery Act, named after Jeanne Clery, a victim of rape and murder on Lehigh campus in 1986. The intent behind the release of such statistics is so that students and their families can be well informed about the security of the campus environment and assess their safety within. Unfortunately, Bucknell University has not lived up to the memory of the young student memorialized in the mandate. 

Like Jeanne Clery, thirty-two students have reportedly been raped on campus between 2020 and 2022. The distribution of those reports reveals a disturbing trend: three, then twelve and finally seventeen. The trend is upward, and while the statistically savvy reader may be grumbling about a small sample size, rest assured that all current signs point to an exacerbation of the issue going forward. Bucknell University will soon no longer have an Interpersonal Violence and Advocacy Director. The role will remain unfilled going into the period commonly referred to as the “Red Zone,” where sexual assault is most pervasive on campus, from the start of class until Thanksgiving Break. On the occasion that Bucknell has bothered to staff an IPVA Director, this time of year is their most crucial, when we will only have a part-time advocate students can go to. Make no mistake, Kristin Gibson has fought tooth and nail for the safety of Bucknellians, but it has been an uphill battle. In the past, students were shuffled into a windowless corner office to process the systemic and gender-based violence that they faced. Only recently did the University introduce an office where both students and the IPVA director can feel the sunlight shining through a slim ray of hope in a dire time. But what more does Bucknell offer to combat the relentless violence on campus? 

Not much. Kristin Gibson has served as our IPVA Director for two years where she created impressive change for this campus, doubly impressive considering the IPVA is an office of one. She received funding for paid educators to facilitate mandated workshops, previously shouldered by myself and other Speak UP peers for free. She also helped to update the outdated education materials that perpetuated problematic frameworks for combatting sexual violence. She organized training for the many student leaders on campus. She worked across disciplines to provide training with Athletics and FSA. Amazingly, she organized Campus Community Ally training within the Greek community. 

Last winter Bucknell University joined the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine Action Collaborative to combat sexual harassment in higher education. The signed mission statement places great emphasis on the pledge to “assess campus culture,… incorporate more widespread bystander intervention training,… [and] identify and remedy any gaps in our current supportive measures.” However, one major gap has yet to be remedied: an IPVA office of one person. Kristin Gibson has single handedly performed Bucknell’s bare minimum responsibilities and so much more. Left without the resources needed to improve current conditions and expected to work alone, ad infinitum, the campus could never hold up its end of the bargain. Speaking of bargains, Bucknell is not actually a “member” of NASEM’s Action Collaborative, unlike other colleges such as Cornell or Michigan State; which would require a financial commitment. Are you noticing a common theme here? 

Bucknell University has a sexual assault problem. It is the only violent crime committed on campus and its rate of reported perpetration, scientifically regarded as fractional to the actual incident number, is rising dramatically. We are not demanding that Bucknell quickly and quietly replace the director and paper over the issue with more empty promises and mission statements. Paper cannot save those thirty-two students now. It is the University’s responsibility to examine the prominence of Greek life on campus, the ambivalence towards sexual violence among the student body, the absence of preparation for incoming first-years, the failure to empower bystanders to intervene when the situation arises and the lack of student resources for before and after the crime. No more paper, no more offices-of-one and no more promises. The current administration must formulate a response to the growing threat to students and follow-up with a vigorous and tactful implementation. Now, more than ever is the time for action.