Hunt, I am guilty of using the term guilty incorrectly. 
I do not know what happened in the case.
The trubunal? Do you think the make up of a trubunal matters? A judge matters? Lawyers tell me all the time who you get for a judge matters.
I was told this yesterday too .
How do you prove this allegation?
How do you prove he said she said cases where one party says the sex was consensual and the other says it wasn’t and there is no other evidence?
I have been thinking a lot about the discussion pages back concerning memory, and how what we remember or don’t of a specific occurrence can change over time. How trauma can affect our memories, and how we can convince ourselves something happened in a certain way even if maybe it didn’t.
We have seen cases here where accusers will say “I filed a complaint after telling my friends what happened. They convinced me I was raped.” Or the accuser in Paul’s case, where months after the relationship ended she realized maybe she was abused by him (after being approached by Emma, who was curious about the demise of what she had heard was a “messy” relationship).
We have also seen cases where it takes someone months or even years to realize they were assaulted or raped. How much can the memory change in that amount of time? What maybe seemed like regret sex the next morning, could, over time and thought and discussions with friends, turn into a real "memory’ of rape. A person bringing a charge in this case months later might legitimately believe she had been assaulted, even if she could go back in time she might see that isn’t what happened at all.
I am reminded of Sclove Kopin case at Brown, where the accuser’s story became more and more brutal as time passed. You could say, maybe she is remembering more clearly as time passed, or you could say she was creating memories that just did not happen:
http://s3.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/documents/1194999/letter-to-office-for-civil-rights-usdoe-6-11-14.pdf
Sorry I can’t quote, but she has 8 versions of what happened (ranging from he touched the side of my neck to he violently strangled me and I could have been killed). He has one.
Whose memory can be trusted in such a case? The one that changes 8 times, maybe because of trauma, maybe for less honest reasons? Or the one that never changes, and tells the same story over and over?
Does anyone think there should be a limit on the time frame when you can file a complaint due to memories fading/changing, especially when there is no other physical evidence available?
Isn’t this what the civil courts and the universities do by simply having to make a decision. Generally there is an accuser and their is an accused. If there is no evidence, no ability for the accuser to prove their accusation even the fraction of a percent. the “win” would go to the accused I think because of presumption of innocence.
I actually DO believe her, that she believes she was raped and it is her right to have that opinion, but she lost her case to have others believe that Paul is a rapist in the legal meaning of the word. But if I were on a jury, I would not find for her because that is not the standard, that SHE believes she was raped (and it is not a ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ verdict in a civil case, but a ‘liable’ or ‘not liable’). In a criminal trial, the elements of the crime need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and she didn’t do that in the hearing with rules of evidence much more relaxed than in a criminal court, so she’d never be able (through the DA of course) to get a conviction. In a civil case, taking all the evidence ‘presented’ in the reports from both sides, even if she did get to a 51% level, some courts allow damages to be offset by the percentage of blame attributed to the accuser. What are her damages? money damages only because there would be no equity damages to be awarded against Paul, as the civil court can’t declare him a rapist. Through a civil court, she could not have it ordered that Columbia expel Paul unless she sues Columbia,and his dismissal is all she claims she wants.
I think she is correct in not suing in a civil court because there won’t be much gain for her, dollar or reputation wise. The DA has already determined that a criminal case will not be brought (she has no right to bring a criminal action). She’s exhausted her legal paths, and now just has the media. I just disagree with how she’s using the media.
Post 659 that’s the alh quote I was responding to earlier–that it is not on women to prevent it from happening. Perhaps not entirely, but shouldn’t women still be doing everything they can to protect themselves and fight back against that evil with all their figurative and literal might?
Because I guess I do agree that there are bad people out there who never learned right from wrong, and they will not be changed by any amount of education. It will be dependent on the good men and women of the world to intervene and fight back.
If that makes me a victim blamer I guess I am, but I really don’t think I am.
This discussion about whether it’s right to emphasize women preventing sexual assault themselves reminds me of a passage from a book named Cryptonomicon (a very good book I might add). It’s a dialogue between two characters named Randy and Avi:
I share Avi’s view, the last sentence in particular. So in this case, I think we need to do both, not one or the other.
But his “education is hopeless” is too pessimistic for me. I think. Or hope.
Hmmmmm?
Isn’t there a mattress and a woman and a movement? Isn’t that part of everything?
No, everything starts way before all of that.
Re 666 I guess it is part, but it certainly is not all. and I think we can see even on this forum there are those who are actually turned off by her methods.
Perhaps she and her mattress are doing better with college students. If so, bully to her! If she has convinced even one college guy not to rape because he helped her carry the mattress instead, I consider her a success.
I suspect there are many out there of all ages and backgrounds who just do not “get” what she is doing and she will change nothing as far as they are concerned.
@al2simon, you write that you’d say to Emma, “If you want to carry a mattress around, that’s fine. Bring attention to the cause you believe, agitate for change. I’ll even tolerate a fair amount of disruption to the campus, because you are fighting for a good cause. I may or may not adopt the changes you want, but if you make a reasonable case I’ll consider it. But I’ve got to balance everyone’s rights. But I hope this is clear too – you can’t harass another of my students.”
What I haven’t understood, and still don’t understand, is what specific actions Emma is doing constitute harassment and that she is supposed to stop doing. You’re saying to her, if you keep doing X, we’re going to throw you out of school. What is X? What words she is saying, or what actions she is doing, constitute harassment and need to be stopped?
@Hunt, you asked me to clarify “screaming.” What’s this in the context of? If it’s in the context of what Emma alleges happened, one of the articles from the Columbia student paper, when they were still using pseudonyms, describes her as claiming she was screaming during the alleged attack. So I’m using “screaming” in whatever way was meant by that article.
Rape is never the fault of the one raped. I am not saying don’t teach women to protect themselves. I am saying we can’t make it a woman’s responsibility to protect herself from rape. That would be victim blaming. Women are not responsible for their rapes. The person who rapes them is responsible for the rape. No matter what skills we teach a woman, she may still be raped. It is not completely within her control, no matter how careful and savvy and “giving off the right vibes.” And I am not willing to say because some women are easier targets than others, they are responsible for being raped. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t support them learning how to protect themselves in every way possible. I would judge that to be how we all take care of each other.
I love dstark’s post #666 and the same thought occurred to me immediately, too, on reading al2simon, #665.
http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/05/28/rape-splaining-10-examples-of-victim-blaming/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/college-officials-rape-things-they-say_n_6173254.html
I really do need to give others a chance to post. I hope Cardinal Fang will explain victim blaming. I thought the earlier comparisons to domestic abuse were excellent.
CF- I’m not judging just this one case in isolation; I am thinking about how to treat all similar types of cases. I need to have consistent standards to be fair to all my students.
I thought I’d explained my viewpoint before, but I’ll try to do it better.
Again, imagine the tables were turned. Paul is found guilty; he’s back on campus after being suspended or something. He gets Emma’s name put into the public record, and her name is spread throughout campus. Then he’s running around campus, very publicly calling “his lying accuser” a lying, crazy, sl*t, and giving media interviews to that effect, and saying he’s protesting until she’s forced to leave the school.
In my opinion, he’s harassing her. I conclude this looking at the totality of the facts. I won’t let him say that he’s merely “protesting on behalf of the unjustly convicted a la Project Innocence”, because based on the totality of the facts I think he’s targeting Emma.
In this case - At the minimum, stop referring to her in any fashion. Stop calling for her expulsion.
To be honest, I’m furious at him for leaking the name of a rape victim. I’d want to stop his whole performance. But I’m not sure I could.
So in the current case - At the minimum, stop calling for his expulsion. Stop referring to Paul in any fashion, even calling out “her rapist”. That privilege was lost once his name was circulated over all of campus. Remember, his name was put on “anonymous” flyers that were posted on campus and was sprayed on bathroom walls on campus (this is roughly right). I’d convene a hearing to try her by the same code of conduct that everyone else abides by. (All this assumes Paul is complaining and there aren’t any academic freedom issues). If the hearing thinks I’m overreaching then that’s fine; I’ll live with it and not launch a round of counter-protests. But maybe they’ll conclude she should be punished for her past harassment in addition to being made to stop.
You may legitimately feel that free speech trumps everything in this case. I’d just ask you two questions
If you can check those boxes then I understand but don’t agree with where you’re coming from.
My thought is that we are a dead society when the lack of basic self-defense mechanisms becomes an operating virtue.
For example, I see the lone individual perpetrating evil on a person, as no different than another nation that is collectively evil wanting to invade our shores. In both cases, a lack of basic self-defense is nothing but an invitation, regardless of what we think are proper standards of behavior.
You are still being far too kind.
Most bad people (mentally-ill excepted) do know right from wrong; they just purposely choose to ignore those differences and boundaries.
Therefore, it is not even an issue of education, but of will. They will to be evil or, in societal terms, they will to not follow the laws and moral boundaries. That has nothing to do with training, but with pure will and intent from the heart of the individual.
And the only way to protect against another’s will and intent is to not make it easy or easier for him / her to exercise that will and intent because that is their goal and they will do whatever to exercise.
Realistically, free societies can only fight back after the fact, as evil thoughts are not against the law. It is part of living in any free society; no matter the training, education, etc., there will be individuals who commit crimes that most find heinous and nothing we can do until the crime is committed.
Alternatively, we could develop a different standard and put people away who we think are evil and dangerous before they do anything, but none of us would want to live there. (The movie Minority Reports addressed this issue and made criminal thoughts against the law and arrested people beforehand - interesting movie, I recall).
I see you not as a victim blamer, but as a promoter of “future” survivors who survived (theoretically, off course) because they actively and purposely did not let an evil individual easily get over on them.
And there is a major philosophical differentiation point for me - that is, prevention is a the ultimate form of being a survivor because I did not give something bad the opportunity to be realized. And, I would be a survivor of the best kind, an unharmed one. Yeah, I would take that any day, and I bet every real victim who did not implement the prevention measures would take that too.
Bearpanther, we are always going to have some disagreement on these issues. Some people are always going to be turned off. Progress will never be made if “some people are turned off” is the defining metric to do something.
My mom does not believe in pre-marital sex. She is not the only one who feels this way, I think. 
So everybody who engages in this activity stop! My mom and others who think like her are turned off by this activity.
Let’s pretend there are two super powers on either side of an ocean. One is good and one is evil. Both have weapons of mass destruction. Through a series of unfortunate and unforeseeable events, the evil super power destroys the good super power. The good super power didn’t see it coming. Should they have? Are they at fault? What should they have done? Knowing the evil super power had the capability to destroy them, should they have just gone ahead and destroyed the evil guys first?
Even locked in her own home, a woman isn’t necessarily safe. A dad here wrote about someone trying to break down his daughter’s door. If we really want to protect ourselves, should we go ahead and exterminate all potential rapists? How will we identify them? This seems to me the logical result of requiring women to protect themselves from rape.
However, I am a pretty mushy thinker.
Yes. OMG I can’t believe I’m saying yes to you dstark
Lol! Had to happen sometime momofthreeboys.
Even a stopped watch is right twice a day.
But I’ll plead the 5th if you ask me which one of you is ticking
I guarantee you that this is not what college females are internalizing re the victim blaming message, and their actions are exhibit one.
When females still think it is OK to get so drunk that their safety is dependent on bystanders, sober monitors and others, I would say that is a good indication that they do not think they are responsible for their own initial frontline safety. Their actions in this regard speak a whole lot louder than your words.
And this is where I do believe that police chief at UVA missed the opportunity to provide a major life lesson. He kept repeating over and over again, “Do not blame Hannah; she did not do anything wrong.” OK, fine, be politically-correct, but getting drunk beyond comprehension is the wrong thing for young female to be doing in public bars around strangers. Sorry, to pretend that she did not get herself in a state that made her a much easier target is not helpful to other young females who saw the Chief say this over and over again and then went out the following weekends thinking, “Hey, nothing wrong here about getting this drunk.” No! Something was very wrong there; Hannah was useless to herself. He should have said “Please do not do that, as there are evil people out there!”
This is straw man argument that misses the entire point of being ahead of the game.
Of course nothing is completely in anyone’s control. However, many victims could be prevented from being victims if they took certain actions, dependent on the situation, which reduces their chances of becoming victims by 50 to 90% or more. Does anyone think that if Hannah had to do it all over again she would have made herself that drunk and dependent on her friends not to ditch her? Doubt it. Similar is still happening at parties, just that luckily death is not a result, but the sense of not being responsible for one’s initial safety is still operating big-time.
I hear the sentiment in your post, but the actions on campus say very different, and then the resulting situations become cases that go on to become the fodder of tribunals.