Today’s Guest Column
Friday night, University Police issued the following safety notice with the subject line “UMD Safety Notice/Peeping Tom (Women’s Bathroom)”:
“On April 4th, 2014, between 6:20 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., a female UMD student reported to the University of Maryland Police Department an incident that occurred inside the women’s bathroom at Centreville Hall, where the student saw an electronic device with a lens over the shower stall. The student then yelled out and subsequently heard the shower stall and bathroom door open. The student then checked the hallway but didn’t see anyone.”
Let me make four observations about this alert, and conclude with supplementary commentary.
1. That is absolutely creepy and an extremely gross violation of the victim’s privacy, and I hope the perpetrator is caught swiftly and punished accordingly.
2. I hope any pictures or videos are destroyed before they embarrass the victim and damage her reputation.
3. I hope anyone who has information to assist the investigation will report it without hesitation or delay, regardless of his or her relationship with the perpetrator.
4. I didn’t know the term “peeping Tom” was a professionally appropriate term for police to use in describing such an incident. In this context, it’s immature and — more importantly — sexist because Tom is a masculine name. It unnecessarily dismisses the possibility of female suspects, which is unfair and probably unreasonable because the victim in Centreville Hall did not see the perpetrator and because the event happened in the women’s bathroom.
This is a blatant example of gender-based discrimination in the supposed pursuit of criminal justice, similar to the classic stereotype of police officers excusing females for driving over the speed limit when the perpetrators are pretty and employ seductive tactics aimed at disarming officers in their capacities as enforcers of the law. That said, I hope the University Police will seriously consider correcting this report and employing alternative language in any future reports (of which I hope there will be none).
Gender-based discrimination in criminal justice is a real threat to the safety and well-being of men and women alike. It should be rooted out whenever and wherever it is present, whether it is in privacy laws, the laws of the road, family law, domestic violence laws or any other laws.
What outrage would ensue if police reported a theft at the University Book Center by an individual whose gender identity was unknown by referring to the perpetrator as a shoplifting Lindsay? How much stranger would it be if the “peeping Tom” was, in fact, another female looking to harm the victim in a manner similar to rudimentary gossip? What would we call her: a peeping tomboy?
Rhetorical questions aside, the origins of the term “peeping Tom” are noteworthy. The term, which today refers to a person who obtains sexual gratification from observing unsuspecting individuals who are partly undressed, naked or engaged in sexual acts, originated at about 1796 with Peeping Tom, a legendary citizen of Coventry who watched Lady Godiva riding naked. Lady Godiva was an English earl’s wife who, according to legend, rode naked through the city of Coventry to save its citizens from a tax (don’t ask me how that works).
Let me be clear: I recognize the origins of the term are masculine, and in many — if not most — cases, the term refers to male perpetrators. In fact, in another incident the same day (but in a different setting) the victim was able to identify the perpetrator as a male. I also do not attempt to suggest the term should be abolished from mere casual dialogue.
However, I do believe the term has absolutely no place in a safety notice issued by police or in any other professional context, especially when the gender of the perpetrator has not yet been conclusively established.
Colin Byrd is a junior sociology major. He can be reached at colinabyrd@gmail.com.
