So what would you prevent her from doing? The whole performance art project? Can she still still say she was raped? What if instead of the performance art, she painted a picture of a mattress, with the same story, would that be OK? What if she wrote a roman a clef and published it in the student magazine? How about an opera? What if the picture, novel or opera got national press?
I don’t see how you can tell her she can’t say she was raped and she is carrying the weight of that rape around. That seems to be too much muzzling.
CF - I’m definitely not a lawyer, but to me it seems like a classic balancing test that’s done all the time - “your rights stop where mine begin”. She can do what she wants as long as it doesn’t create a hostile environment for him. Can she say she was raped? Yes. Can she submit a novel about her experiences as her thesis? Yes.
All I’m saying is that he should have the same rights as any other student to be free from harassment. But wherever that line is drawn, make sure you’d be comfortable with it if the tables were turned. Personally, I know I’d want to give a rape victim whose accuser was found guilty a lot of room to be free from harassment from him - let’s not get into the guilty/not-guilty/innocent trilemma (first time I’ve ever used that word )
How do you un-ring the bell of his name being made public? I don’t know. Probably nothing to be done. But remember the JMU case of the girl whose topless photos were sent around campus. The analogies are not perfect, but I’d say the result is worse, even if there is a perfectly valid reason for the actions Emma took. And I think a lot of people were hanging judges were that one - not me though
dstark - You may be right that he hasn’t filed a complaint. I don’t know if the school can act without a complainant. They can act on their own volition for sexual assault cases. In my Ku Klux Klan hypothetical, I know I’d want them to act.
CF, yes the schools can expel students who commit felonies (with proof of the guilty verdict), but can they adjudicate the crime? Battery can be a felony or misdemeanor, and hitting another student can be against the school’s code without the student being convicted of that offense. Is the school convicting the student of the crime? No. It is either using the fact that the student was convicted in the courts and the conviction is the reason for the expulsion, or if it held it’s own hearing and is expelling the student for violating the rule against hitting another, a much lesser standard.
It is much more likely that Columbia has a code about harassment, assault, battery as it defines those things, not to the criminal requirements. It then would hold a hearing on that accusation, not to the criminal level since it cannot impose any criminal penalties. If you (Columbia) are making the rules, why make the standard the harder one to prove? Refer the felonies to the police.
Alsimon2, I saw you reference the UNC case. I don’t see the details about that case. Besides referencing the UNC case yesterday, when did you talk about the UNC case?
dstark - Actually, I never mentioned the UNC case before my last couple posts. You did, at least by posting several articles about it.
The girl’s name was Landen Gambill. The headline of the stories you posted were that UNC was going to expel her for speaking out about her rape. But at least my reading of the stories you posted painted a very different picture than the headline. The articles are in your old posts on the UVa thread if you’re interested.
Simple - How about just stop being a bully? Period.
Emma lost her case twice in the most sympathetic format to her, the college tribunal. AND, she does not seem to want to file a civil case. Therefore, she needs to get a life. (If she went for the civil suit, I would then give her some leeway, but still she should not be calling names like rapist until she wins)
A whole cadre of people both times reached the conclusion that she was not raped, or better said, she was not a victim of sexual misconduct or whether the term Columbia uses, but it clearly was not called rape.
You can go ahead and believe her all you want, but that does not give her the right to smear someone who was never found responsible for what she accused him of.
This where advocates are losing lot of people, such as lawyers, judges, etc. real fast and the backfiring is emanating from here and rippling out - advocates cannot seem to accept the fact that not all sexual encounters called rape by the accusing female is considered rape legally or even called basic sexual misconduct by silly college tribunals (Emma learned that twice). Very few trust and eventually follow people who cannot accept the obvious.
Alsimon2, I refreshed my memory. You are ok with the school kicking out the accuser? She dd not name the victim. She primarily was complaining about the process. UNC is going to be highlighted quite a bit about campus rape in the documentary “Hunting Ground” which comes out in a month. I don’t think UNC is going to look too good.
Did you ever watch Dallas, the original show? I doubt this show is referenced that much.
There was a scene between a father and a younger son. The father owned an oil company. The younger son Bobby asked his father, “Can I could have some power?”.
I wil never forget what his father answered. “You don’t ask for power. Power is something you take”.
If you want to cause change, you have to go out and do it. Change is not going to be handed to you.
Many of these advocates have been sexually assaulted. It makes sense. You are sexually assaulted. Nothing happens. You want change.
I have a disabled kid. Guess what? I am interested in issues that affect the disabled.
So what do you want the women who have been sexually assaulted to do? Just take it? These cases are very hard to prove.
I don’t remember posting this. Sorry if I already posted this.
Dstark – Here’s my understanding of the key points of the UNC case (from memory, so details may be off)
Landen accuses boyfriend of repeatedly raping her over the course of a 16 month relationship (all of senior year in high school plus one semester of college) a few months after they break up.
Before the hearing, UNC forces the guy to leave campus as a safety measure.
During hearing, UNC finds guy not guilty by a 5-0 verdict. (Without a lot of facts, we’re stuck reading tea leaves as usual. In the Columbia case, I think it’s likely the guy was guilty. In this case, I think it’s more likely the guy is actually innocent).
Guy loses so much time away from class that he has to withdraw for a semester or two.
Landen is upset at losing her case. Thinks she was shabbily treated by the panel, including the women. Accuses university of being unfair. She becomes an activist and is extremely vocal
When guy returns, he claims that part of her activism is essentially to deliberately harass him; that he’s being made an outcast among the hundreds of people in their social group and pretty much across UNC.
He files a complaint with UNC. UNC schedules a hearing.
Landen receives notice that she is supposed to show up. Before the hearing even starts, she goes to DEFCON 1, alerts media. Basically, in so many words says that even having the hearing is retaliation against her (though the headline is “UNC threatens to expel me”).
UNC scared to death about lawsuit accusing them of taking retaliatory action. UNC Chancellor tells everyone she is exercising her executive powers and quashes hearing before it starts. (IMO, Chancellor did the only thing she could do.)
In this case, its steps 7-9 that I am drawing attention to for the analogies to the Columbia case.
I don’t know what they should do. I doubt it would come to expulsion. What I object to exempting Landen from the rules that others have to live by, and allegedly harassing a guy found not guilty (and who may in fact be not guilty).
Maybe it’s true on Dallas. But in my opinion it should be about doing what’s right. Preventing sexual assault isn’t an issue that should be an us vs. them issue. Universities above all should be about persuasion, not power.
The “power is something you take” slogan can be used to justify a lot of bad behavior. I don’t agree with an ends always justifies the means mentality. We have a moral and legal framework that has served us very well, and activism needs to be in that framework. Historically, without an underlying morality or a concept of justice, then doing something simply because you have the power to do so soon turns into an open season on women. With that mindset, the only reason women aren’t assaulted is because their fathers / husbands view rape as a violation of their property rights. It’s a medieval viewpoint that I think is crazy.
Maybe it should be pointed out that current policy positions being touted do not help either.
College tribunals do not determine rape, but rather sexual or behavioral misconduct. So if people keep advocating going to college tribunals, and not the police, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that actual rape will be gotten away with for sure. (The accused by Emma was never brought up on rape charges, for example)
It is also a self-fulfilling prophecy that expelling males found responsible of sexual misconduct (aka rape in the outside world), and not going to the police to try and get charges, means that advocates have automatically condemned other females to be assaulted some time in the future.
Great policy there! (meant facetiously) No chance of an actual rape conviction and almost guaranteed sacrificial females to be assaulted in the future by said males. No need to wonder why lots of people think this makes little sense. This approach does absolutely nothing to reduce rape, but actually perpetuates rape by potentially letting a real rapist go free from one campus to another.
Many a females have figured this basic logic out, i.e., this tribunal policy just sets them up to be next on a real rapist’s list, after he is expelled and advocates are hunky dory about a higher guilty of sexual misconduct rate. It is rather ironic that this approach assures there will be more rapes in the future by the expelled students, as there is zero chance of them paying a real legal price. (Talking actual guilty parties here - not cases like Emma where she could not even show basic sexual misconduct)
I predict that it will be other females who blow holes in this stuff, and the whole afraid of change and men in power narrative stuff will look as silly as it sounds.
“There’s no policy that’s going to change the fact that it’s easy to get away with rape. That’s just the nature of the offense.”
It is a whole lot easier if you roll over and go to sleep afterwards or say nothing for months or continue to befriend or even date the alleged the rapist. But, I really thought people knew this already.
dstark - OK, sorry about misinterpreting your comment. I reread your post. Apologies. Sometimes I shoot first, aim later. I would respectfully say though that a few comments have come awfully close to a “Kill them all and let God sort them out” mindset. I assume they don’t reflect your true views in the sober light of day.
Anyway, I really don’t care about Landen and her boyfriend - for all I know he’s Jack the Ripper. I’m sure she has her side, he has his side. But he was only found guilty of verbal harassment. Hard to believe he confessed to rape to an administrator and he was still found innocent of sexual assault, but what do I know? It’s not really relevant here.
What I do care about is exempting her from an inquiry into her actions just like any other student would be subject to. That doesn’t seem to be disputed, and it’s simply wrong. That’s really the only point I wanted to make vis-a-vis the Columbia case.
Whether the piece of performance art should be allowed, as performance art it’s been hugely successful, and at this point it has very little to do with him anymore. I’ll forget his name in a few weeks, but I’ll remember the performance and the symbolism of the mattress.
)
