Title IX vs. Diversity of Consent

In the ceaseless struggle for equity and social justice, it's important to understand all the ways our society marginalizes the underprivileged, and to ask ourselves how we can do better. It should be obvious that in order to dismantle systems of oppression, against which the oppressed struggle tirelessly, we need to strike at the roots within the system. It's high time to re-examine one of these systems, specifically Title IX, in light of racial equity.

The notorious Dear Colleague letter issued by The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights which contained the statement "The sexual harassment of students, including sexual violence, interferes with students' right to receive an education free from discrimination and, in the case of sexual violence, is a crime." The letter illustrates multiple examples of Title IX requirements as they relate to sexual violence, and makes clear that, should an institution fail to fulfill its responsibilities under Title IX, the Department of Education can impose a fine and potentially deny further institutional access to federal funds.

This letter has fueled the growth of "Affirmative Consent" rules at colleges, that focus on requiring students who engage in sexual activity to make sure that they first and frequently obtain consent throughout an encounter. California has even enacted it as state law in bill SB-967 .

Make no mistake though, that the consent described by these rules and these laws is a very white, very Western notion of consent, and it ignores the diversity of consent that exists around the world. This development is far from a means to preserve the safety of a victimized group, but instead a means to safeguard the unearned privileges of an already highly privileged demographic, middle-to-upper class white women, at the expense of a marginalized demographic, muslim men.

There are certain situations in which no "white consent" need be given to a muslim man whatsoever, according to his diverse consent requirements, and to deny him this aspect of his culture is problematic. For example The Quran in Sura 23:5-6 says:

5 [Most certainly true believers] . . . guard their private parts scrupulously, 6 except with regard to their wives and those who are legally in their possession, for in that case they shall not be blameworthy. (Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Quran, vol. 3, p. 237)

This plainly means that with his wife or with his slaves, a man may freely partake sexually. Further, we must take pains to clarify that slavery, and particularly slavery of a conquered female prisoner, is fully sanctioned by the Quran in Sura 4:24, which says:

And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war) . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319). (See also Suras 4:3 and 33:50)

This is highly important, because as we have clearly laid out, muslims are in a struggle against a highly oppressive system. Each and every oppressed minority, every day of their lives fights a battle against a system that is at war with them. Any white woman, Christian, Buddhist, Spiritual-but-not-religious, you name it, is part of that system of oppression and she enjoys the benefits of it at the expense of those less fortunate. If a muslim man obtains a kafir in the course of his struggle, it is clear that his ownership of her is sufficient consent.

Forcing these notions of white consent on people from a non-white background, denying them their diverse consent could very well cost them their opportunity to obtain an education, or even send them into our prison systems. Their very lives are on the line in this struggle for equity and justice, and it's time that we consider how to level the field and to eliminate whiteness from our notions of consent.