Affirmative Consent as State Law in California

Affirmative Consent as State Law in California

Affirmative Consent as State Law in California

The state of California has adopted a new framework of consent for colleges and universities which will have widespread implications for prosecuting sexual assault.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Tar Heel and is republished here with permission.

As UNC and other campuses nationwide engage in sexual assault policymaking efforts, California has become the first state to enact a new consent standard for colleges and universities in hopes of changing the culture surrounding sexual violence.

On September 28, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a statewide “yes means yes” law for institutions that receive state money. The law stipulates that the person accused of sexual assault must prove that a clear affirmation of consent was given by the accuser.

Christi Hurt, UNC’s assistant vice chancellor and chief of staff of student affairs, said she supports many aspects of the California law. She said UNC’s campus-specific policy and its definition of consent align with provisions in the California law underscoring the importance of affirmative consent instead of a definitive “no.”

“I think any move to encourage the concept around affirmative consent and striving towards healthy sexuality is exactly the direction we need to be moving toward for the country,” she said.

North Carolina could benefit from a statewide law or policy regarding affirmative consent, she said, but there could also be problems with such a legal standard.

“Building a policy that worked for our university—it was so important to listen to students, staff and faculty,” she said. “I hesitate to put anything in place for any other campus because a policy should reflect the needs of each individual university.”

Laura Palumbo, prevention campaign specialist for the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, said a statewide policy in any state would convey more benefits than drawbacks.

“It’s changing the standard from the idea that the sexually assaulted person needs to prove a ‘no’ to making the standard of positive, enthusiastic communication of consent,” she said. “The responsibility that (the standard) puts on campuses when it becomes a statewide law is really significant.”

Palumbo said California’s policy could push colleges and universities to re-examine their campuswide policies—in particular, motivating them to consider the detrimental effects of placing the policies’ unclear standards of proof on the victims of sexual assault.

“The standard of a ‘no’ or a ‘yes’ isn’t giving people all of the information they need because there is a lot more complexity to that in relation to our interactions,” she said. “There aren’t always black and white boundaries, but there does always need to be clear communication.”

Maddy Frumkin, co-chairwoman of Project Dinah, a UNC group that works to end sexual assault and interpersonal violence, said she supports California’s adoption of an affirmative consent model.

“I think enthusiastic is a step above willingness,” she said. “The idea is that we want people to want to engage in sexual encounters, but that definition has become very misconstrued. They’re afraid of being coerced or what could happen if they didn’t consent.”

Palumbo said she hopes policies and laws like California’s could help create campus cultures where students feel free to communicate their needs.

“For campuses, the goal is emphasizing that every student has the right to communicate their boundaries and feel that those boundaries are going to be respected by their peers.”

 

Disobey authoritarians, support The Nation

Over the past year you’ve read Nation writers like Elie Mystal, Kaveh Akbar, John Nichols, Joan Walsh, Bryce Covert, Dave Zirin, Jeet Heer, Michael T. Klare, Katha Pollitt, Amy Littlefield, Gregg Gonsalves, and Sasha Abramsky take on the Trump family’s corruption, set the record straight about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s catastrophic Make America Healthy Again movement, survey the fallout and human cost of the DOGE wrecking ball, anticipate the Supreme Court’s dangerous antidemocratic rulings, and amplify successful tactics of resistance on the streets and in Congress.

We publish these stories because when members of our communities are being abducted, household debt is climbing, and AI data centers are causing water and electricity shortages, we have a duty as journalists to do all we can to inform the public.

In 2026, our aim is to do more than ever before—but we need your support to make that happen. 

Through December 31, a generous donor will match all donations up to $75,000. That means that your contribution will be doubled, dollar for dollar. If we hit the full match, we’ll be starting 2026 with $150,000 to invest in the stories that impact real people’s lives—the kinds of stories that billionaire-owned, corporate-backed outlets aren’t covering. 

With your support, our team will publish major stories that the president and his allies won’t want you to read. We’ll cover the emerging military-tech industrial complex and matters of war, peace, and surveillance, as well as the affordability crisis, hunger, housing, healthcare, the environment, attacks on reproductive rights, and much more. At the same time, we’ll imagine alternatives to Trumpian rule and uplift efforts to create a better world, here and now. 

While your gift has twice the impact, I’m asking you to support The Nation with a donation today. You’ll empower the journalists, editors, and fact-checkers best equipped to hold this authoritarian administration to account. 

I hope you won’t miss this moment—donate to The Nation today.

Onward,

Katrina vanden Heuvel 

Editor and publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x