No I don’t think the University has an obligation. I agree this is “her” issue to work out with “her” therapist. “Her” rights with regard to her mental distress in this case in my opinion do not supercede his rights to have the same experience in college as all the other students. That is where the equal opportunity comes in. She has a problem, no one else has the same problem or is in harm because of her personal issues. The her is in quotes because I’m presuming that it is is “her” that has the issues.
Interesting theory; I wonder if it is correct.
I’m sure you realize that people are different and deserve different considerations.
Aren’t we talking about the case where we have very minimal facts? I think some speculated that perhaps the girl originally thought he WAS the rapist and reported on that basis. Restrictions were then perhaps placed until the college sorted it out. We don’t really know exactly how it was reported.
If the college imposed restrictions simply because the girl went to the administration and said the boy’s similar appearance upset her, then they are on very shaky ground.
Please do not mischaracterize what I said. I very clearly proposed that they “feel” an obligation, not that they had one, although an entire discussion could be formed around either side of that.
Not at all. You are the one who can’t seem to get a handle on that.
I don’t agree. Feel free to support your case.
Hint: You could try using “due process” in your answer.
Assuming this story is true … this monarch declares that since both man and woman are blameless, her right to travel around the campus without being shocked by the appearance of someone who, to her, resembles someone who harmed her, shall be given equal, not greater, weight than his right to be able to travel around the campus to pursue his goals. So they must split the campus. He’ll avoid areas that she needs or likes to go, at the times that she will be there, and she’ll avoid areas that he needs or likes to go, at the time he will be there. Representatives negotiate a map with areas for each, taking into account their shifting needs and wants, with the overlapping areas subject to time restrictions, thus allowing each full access to the campus.
If they both take the same class, they will attend on alternate days, and on the day that one isn’t present, the class will be recorded for the missing student to watch later.
Where this is not possible, a screen will be erected in the class dividing her side from his side, and they will both enter and leave from separate doors.
Alternately, given the appropriate incentives, the man may consent to change his appearance (e.g., grow a mustache and/or get a haircut). Representatives of the two parties shall negotiate this arrangement and may petition the monarch to contribute to the incentives that will be offered to the man to change his appearance.
JustOneDad: this isn’t a game show, if you have a point make it. Then we can all respond.
JustOneDad–just to make sure I understand, I think you are making two distinct points:
- that it’s in the university’s rights to do this because they are private* institutions that can create their own policy.
- because we don’t know how injured/fragile the female student was, she must be protected even if it’s at some restrictions to her assailant’s doppelganger.
If I’ve understood you correctly, I think most people will have a negative reaction to point #2 and require convincing from an ethics perspective. I can almost see using the “no perfumes allowed” as an analogy but that applies equally to everyone.
If I’ve misunderstood your points, feel free to correct me.
*let’s ignore the state-run institutions for now. Presumably, there’s a different point there as they’re not private by definition.
Got it JustOneDad, but the thought that a college or universities “feels” they have an obligation that infringes on the rights inherent with a supposedly equal accepted student is to me still somewhat frightening. I’m sure there is a back story, but if it’s just that he “looked” like someone, to infringe on his right to equal access to the campus is unacceptable. So when this disturbed student goes to a restaurant and sees someone that triggers her emotional issues the restaurant should politely ask the look alike to leave? Or when the disturbed person starts working and the person two cubicles down triggers her emotional issues HR should remove the look alike? Or the disturbed person rents an apartment and the next door neighbor triggers? We don’t operate that way in this country - or at least I didn’t think we did.
Just one dad: The smell of cranberry sauce can still trigger flashbacks for me many, many years after my rapes. Science has proven that scents are powerful memory triggers. Should I forever ban people from eating cranberries around me? Of course not! Instead, I have learned techniques to stop the flashback as soon as it occurs, and to talk myself calm when I am heading to Thanksgiving dinner.
The school is doing no favors to this young woman by restricting the young man’s movements on campus. Dealing with memory triggers is one of the things that we do in group therapy and support groups.
Well, the elephant in the room from this small excerpt from a very thoughtful law review article, (which apparently no one bothers to read…wax on) is whether there ever was a rape at all.
The law review article makes the point that there is a serious downside to granting implicit credibility to rape allegers simply because they are distraught and disjointed. There is a risk that you’re dealing with someone who’s off their rocker, as the UVa Rolling Stone case illustrates so effectively.
@fragbot
- Yes. Not really open to discussion. It’s the law. This was a private institution.
- Yes. I feel the the board made a very compassionate decision. You know, maybe the Board just didn’t like the guy. That happens sometimes, and it doesn’t all have to do with simply…looks. Sometimes, behavior and attitude factor in. In fact, some of the student applicant posters on this very forum would be well served to learn that. They probably won’t, however.
It doesn’t matter to me whether there was a real rape or not in the context of this case. It is beyond ludicrous that the activities of a person completely unrelated to the situation should be constrained in any way, shape or form. If I, a white woman, was raped by a black man, I can’t just demand the university restrict all black male students to certain parts of the campus just because it would make me feel better.
This is truly one of the dumbest threads ever on CC.
It’s hardly a compassionate decision to arbitrarily take a student who did nothing wrong and restrict his activities on campus arbitrarily. Get real.
How is that “frightening”? That’s the very power most people expressly wish they had, free from “government interference”, and, most often, loudly assert that they DO have in their own castle.
You have very few rights on private property compared to those given to you by the owner as you arrive. Kings with the power to admit you generally reserve the right to expel you.
No perfume allowed doesn’t work as an analogy. It’s a choice to wear perfume, there is clear actual physical harm that can be triggered by exposure, and a prohibition isn’t targeted at a given individual. It’s not this guy’s choice to have a certain bone structure that just so happens to look like the bad guy.
“How is that “frightening”? That’s the very power most people expressly wish they had, free from “government interference”, and, most often, loudly assert that they DO have in their own castle.”
In their OWN castle. This young lady is free to tell this young man not to step on HER private property.
Restricting the movements of an innocent person IS frightening.
Let’s use a different analogy. These two people board a cruise. The cruise ship is presumably private property owned by a cruise line. The woman goes to the ship’s captain and says she doesn’t want to see this guy at the pool or at the shows or bar because he RESEMBLES someone who harmed her. Do you think the captain is going to acquiesce and tell a fully paying customer who has done no wrong that he can’t use the pool, shows or bar he paid for? On what grounds? All of a sudden paying customer A is more important than paying customer B?
Of course it is. And, I’m surprised at you for terming it “arbitrary”. They could have expelled him. I’m not going to say this again.
“You have very few rights on private property compared to those given to you by the owner as you arrive. Kings with the power to admit you generally reserve the right to expel you.”
Not true. A restaurant can’t tell its white customers they can sit anywhere and order off the entire menu, but their black customers have to sit at the back of the restaurant and only have access to the salad bar. A hotel can’t tell Christian customers who pay the suite room rate that they can have suites, but the Jewish customers who pay the suite room rate are only entitled to a regular room.