CMU GAME ADDRESSES ASSAULT

Carnegie Mellon University interactive game focuses on sexual assault bystanders

Jess Klein, coordinator of gender programs and sexual violence prevention at Carnegie Mellon University, has seen enough of approaches that put the burden of sexual assault on the survivor, ranging from rape-prevention nail polish to phone apps with loud alarms.

But an approach developed by a CMU class is so different that she hopes CMU will use it in small groups in the coming school year.

This approach is an interactive online game called “Decisions that Matter.” Designed in graphic novel style, the game puts the player in the scene as a bystander, allows the player to make decisions and then has different outcomes depending on the bystander’s role. The game can be found at http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/course/53-610.

“I think it’s easy for someone to say, ‘I won’t be sexually assaulted so I don’t have to worry about that.’ It’s easy for someone to say, ‘I won’t sexually assault anyone so I don’t have to worry about that.’ We can all say we can all be bystanders,” she said.

By focusing on bystanders, Ms. Klein said, there can be a cultural change on “speaking up and speaking out, accountability, challenging someone’s entitlements.”

She said, “The future of violence prevention is bystander education, if it’s done the right way.”

The game tells a story about a group of college friends, including the player, who get together on campus, eat a meal and later go to a party. The game doesn’t tell bystanders what to do and is somewhat ambiguous. Should the bystander speak up when a student is catcalled or just ignore it? What if a male friend gropes a female friend? Or, what if a couple may have had too much alcohol to make wise decisions? When should a friend intervene?

At three points, the bystander must choose one of three actions.

right now. I think it would be advantageous; [it] does create a buzz in the state. There’s an economic benefit to the state as well.”

Although some politicians of both parties find that argument compelling, others, including the state’s Democratic and GOP party chairmen, warn that such a shift would impose significant logistical costs. Assuming that the state would continue to hold contests for nominations for other offices at the same time as its presidential primaries, an earlier date would push back important preliminary dates for candidates further down the ballot.

That’s because candidates planning to run for state offices must begin to lay the legal groundwork for their campaigns months before the voting date.

“I have not been supportive of changing the primary date because of the way it affects so many other people,” said Rob Gleason, the chairman of the state Republican Party. “You’d have to change the date of for petition circulation … You’d be circulating petitions in January and February. I’ve always kind of resisted that.”

In the current year’s election calendar, for instance, with a May 19 primary, the first day for candidates to circulate petitions was Feb. 17. If the primary were roughly two months earlier, that would push the petition date into December.

“I see no reason right now to change it, from the Democratic side,” said Jim Burn, the Democratic state chairman. “It throws everything out of whack; people are going to have to start a very complex series of events during the holidays … The costs and the complications far outweigh any benefits.”

Under national Republican rules, the date envisioned in the Greiner legislation would allow the state party to shift to a winnertake-all system for its delegate selection. Current rules specify that earlier primaries and caucuses must lead to delegate allocation proportional to each candidate’s share of the vote. Under Pennsylvania’s current rules, that would be a moot point.

Although Democratic delegates are pledged to a specific presidential candidate and awarded according to complex rules including quotas designed to ensure gender and ethnic representation, Pennsylvania’s GOP rules are much simpler. The state Republicans vote directly for their convention delegates and those delegates run on their own — legally untethered to any particular presidential candidate.