Universities Under Investigation Re: Handling Sexual Assault

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by Low D Flat

So how come there was campus rape before hookup culture existed, and before second-wave feminism in the 70s? Or do you assert that there wasn't campus rape before then?

No of course I don't assert that. The radicals who are pushing so hard on this issue are conflating and defining rape in ever more expansive ways. In the survey that produced the often cite 1 in 5 stat, the definition of rape was expanded to include any sexual contact that took place after drinking. Obviously there is a huge variation between incapacitated/passed out, which is inarugably rape, and having a drink and then having sex. The hookup culture is fueled by binge drinking men and women. And so we have a lot more sexual encounters that are ambiguous and impossible to adjudicate because one or both parties doesn't remember the events with clarity. Add to that the double standard and the stereotypes of both genders and we have a total mess where it's impossible to behave fairly to both parties when an allegation is made.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by honorgal

I don't care what it implies. The facts are that it's almost exclusively women who are demanding that we throw out due process for the (almost always) male accused and that we abolish the presumption of innocence and redefine the legal meaning of consensual and nonconsensual sex. That's the extent of my interest in the subject. Beyond that, I'm not interested in fighting the gender wars from either perspective.

You should care what it implies especially when you introduce biology and gender differences to a discussion.

Originally Posted by honorgal

Yes, I have.

No, you haven't. Perhaps you do not even know.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

False dichotomy. The alternative is to work toward a system that better protects and balances the rights of the accuser and the rights of the accused.

This is where you and I differ. I view the removal of a rapist from campus not just as a means of protecting the victim, but as a means of preventing more rape (and not in the "he'll go rape off-campus" sense, in the "rapists faced with consequences will stop raping" sense). But even so, if a lower standard of proof isn't the solution, what alternatives do you see?

[Kevin]

This thread is indicative of the mentality of many here:

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...=Duke+Lacrosse

Remember the Duke LaCrosse incident in which nearly all posters simply assumed that because some black stripper (race was material in that thread) accused 4 men of raping her, it simply must be true. They ignored the defense attorneys, they assumed that because charges were filed by now disbarred Mike Nifong, the allegations must be true.

That is the sort of prejudice men have to face when accused of rape. The standard of proof at the criminal level and the standard of proof for a university to expel someone basically on someone else's word should be and is high for a reason.

Some of the language associated with rape carries such negative connotation. For example, if you engage in victim blaming, i.e., pointing out that a victim quite possibly could have taken steps to not find herself in a compromised position, you're a horrible person. In the above-linked thread, when someone pointed out that going to a private residence to strip for a bunch of college athletes seemed to be an unsafe choice, they were savaged over it.

God I loved that thread... so illustrative of how quick some on here are prone to side with alleged victims--even if they are strippers trying to make a quick buck or two by accusing innocent men of rape, potentially ruining their promising lives.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

This is where you and I differ. I view the removal of a rapist from campus not just as a means of protecting the victim, but as a means of preventing more rape (and not in the "he'll go rape off-campus" sense, in the "rapists faced with consequences will stop raping" sense). But even so, if a lower standard of proof isn't the solution, what alternatives do you see?

Seems like this could be argued for rape anywhere, not just on the college campus. And for murder as well. Instead, we've based our system of justice on the presumption of innocence and Blackstone's formula.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by Kevin

This thread is indicative of the mentality of many here:

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...=Duke+Lacrosse

Remember the Duke LaCrosse incident in which nearly all posters simply assumed that because some black stripper (race was material in that thread) accused 4 men of raping her, it simply must be true. They ignored the defense attorneys, they assumed that because charges were filed by now disbarred Mike Nifong, the allegations must be true.

That is the sort of prejudice men have to face when accused of rape. The standard of proof at the criminal level and the standard of proof for a university to expel someone basically on someone else's word should be and is high for a reason.

Some of the language associated with rape carries such negative connotation. For example, if you engage in victim blaming, i.e., pointing out that a victim quite possibly could have taken steps to not find herself in a compromised position, you're a horrible person. In the above-linked thread, when someone pointed out that going to a private residence to strip for a bunch of college athletes seemed to be an unsafe choice, they were savaged over it.

God I loved that thread... so illustrative of how quick some on here are prone to side with alleged victims--even if they are strippers trying to make a quick buck or two by accusing innocent men of rape, potentially ruining their promising lives.

Oh, thank you for the link. I wasn't on GC then, and I'm sure it will be fascinating reading.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

This is where you and I differ. I view the removal of a rapist from campus . . . .

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what I think is an increased risk that lower standards of proof and consideration of evidence that would not be admissible in court regardless of the standard of proof will result in the removal from campus of a person who isn't a rapist.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what I think is an increased risk that lower standards of proof and consideration of evidence that would not be admissible in court regardless of the standard of proof will result in the removal from campus of a person who isn't a rapist.

Right, and I'm saying that protecting innocent women from being raped is at least as important as protecting innocent men from being thrown off of campus.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

This thread is indicative of the mentality of many here:

Most people in the thread in which you are posting did not say the accuser should automatically be believed.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Right, and I'm saying that protecting innocent women from being raped is at least as important as protecting innocent men from being thrown off of campus.

In your opinion, is Jameis Winston a rapist? Are you comfortable with one person, an administrator at FSU, making the determination of his guilt or innocence? Does it matter if the administrator is a male or female?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Right, and I'm saying that protecting innocent women from being raped is at least as important as protecting innocent men from being thrown off of campus.

I would say there's a difference in the way we should treat people who are victims vs. people who are only prospective victims.

In other words, two wrongs don't make a right.

Women (and men) have many options at their disposal, including orders of protection from the courts. Unfortunately, it seems a lot of schools, in order to keep their crime stats low are not advising students well of their rights.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Most people in the thread in which you are posting did not say the accuser should automatically be believed.

I don't think anyone has actually said that the accuser should automatically believed. However, in practice, that Duke LaCrosse incident certainly showed the intense biases of many here to believe the accuser no matter how much her story doesn't pass the smell test. (or in that case, the DNA tests)

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't think anyone has actually said that the accuser should automatically believed.

Because many of us do not believe the accuser should automatically be believed. ETA1: That was covered in the first two pages of this thread.

ETA2: Do not go based on a 2006 thread in which much of the tone was rooted in GC Race Wars and overall U.S.A. racial dynamics; how people feel about college athletes; and how people feel about strippers. That 2006 thread was about more than rape allegations and woman-man sexual relations.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Because many of us do not believe the accuser should automatically be believed.

And yet "many" thought the Duke LaCrosse accuser should be taken at her word. Many do a pretty piss poor job of accounting for their own personal biases.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And yet "many" thought the Duke LaCrosse accuser should be taken at her word.

Back in 2006 and based on opinions regarding race, college athletes, and strippers.