I should have stipulated that by “media” I am referring to online news organizations that I routinely follow: CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, LA Times, NYT, WaPo, BBC, etc. There may be other media outlets that covered this issue differently and in a more objective way.
There are at least 2 sides to every story. Given that many cases arise not so much from flat our refusal of consent, but from lack of explicit consent, or confusion over consent, I don’t see a problem with believing everyone who files a complaint. I believe in the concept of “trust but verify.” If you look at the statistics from Yale, the vast majority don’t seem to want to press charges. They don’t want the respondent to face criminal charges, they don’t even seem to want university sanctions - what they do want is for them to understand that what they did was not appropriate. If we use that as a starting point, maybe we can understand that it is possible that the complainants honestly believe they are victims, white the respondents may or may not realize that some consider what they did to be wrong. Maybe they don’t understand the concept of “affirmative consent,” or maybe they don’t realize the impact of their unwanted advances.
If we start from a point where all complaints are initially believed, until proven otherwise, that doesn’t mean all will result in severe sanctions. It means that all who feel like they have been victimized will be comfortable coming forward. I think it’s far more important that anyone who assaults or intimidates another student faces some kind of consequence. Save the serious consequences for repeat offenders - and have confidence they will be identified, because people will be comfortable filing reports. If we gut the Title IX process, and require the same level of proof as a criminal trial, why bother skipping the criminal trial? “The Accused” seem to forget that while certain sanctions can have a lifelong impact, they are balanced by certain protections afforded through FERPA that won’t exist in the criminal process - and the criminal process alone can be extremely disruptive, even if they’re found not guilty. A balance needs to be found.
I would tend to believe the great preponderance of people who say that they were assaulted. In fact, they probably were assaulted. At the same time, it seems to me that in many of these cases there will be insufficient evidence to prove the allegation. Most of the incidents happen in private and are not recorded on video. I think it is worthwhile to raise this point every so often in the discussion, especially for those who think that the cases should all be referred to the criminal justice system.
Rape kits can prove that intercourse took place, but cannot prove that it was non-consensual, especially if the victim knew her attacker. Prosecutors don’t tend to bring cases where there is no realistic likelihood of conviction.
There are occasionally incidents where the actions are recorded on video, and then the prosecutions often lead to conviction. Brock Turner was caught in flagrante by two witnesses. From what I have read, he still tried deny that the situation was transpiring as it quite blatantly was (and I have read that he also tried to run away). However, Owen Labrie’s “deny till I die” plan serves actual rapists well when there are no witnesses. His chief legal difficulty was due to the age of his victim.
The attitudes among a number of the boys at St. Paul’s are not restricted to that rarefied atmosphere. Surely there are many, many adults who regard rape as unmanly, and not something to brag about, or use to win dubious contests. This view needs to be conveyed effectively to people who don’t hold it.
“There are at least two sides to every story.” Yep, there are two sides to the Holocaust, lynchings, genocides, acid throwing, drunk driving, child abuse, rape, and so on.
The amount of plain old misogyny on this thread is amazing.
I gather from the last few posts that many here think that it is reasonable to give those that say they were assaulted or raped the benefit of the doubt, but it is not reasonable to give the same benefit of the doubt to those that say they were falsely accused. That line of reasoning seems to have been adopted by most journalists that have covered this issue.
The comments in #106 seem to me like an attempt to establish a false equivalence of “benefit of the doubt.” Under the law, a person has to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is quite a lot of benefit of the doubt, because the bar for conviction is very high. I don’t argue with that.
What doubt and what benefits exactly do you have in mind, when you say that one is giving those who say they were raped “the benefit of the doubt”? That is, you would be inclined to disbelieve them, but you are giving them the “benefit” of the doubt? That seems like very cold consolation.
The only “benefit of the doubt” that I can see in the case of someone who claims to have been raped, but does not have concrete evidence (no video, no witnesses, attack in private) is that the claim is not challenged, though nothing at all can be done about it, other than for a counselor or faculty member to say “I am sorry about what you have been through.”
I would not call a young man a rapist unless it was actually proven in a court of law. That is rather different from not thinking that the person is very certainly a rapist (just taking no action on it, and not speaking about it).
With regard to a man who said that he was falsely accused of rape, I would not automatically doubt him. I would definitely be willing to listen to his comments and explanation. What standard of evidence do you think I should go by, in concluding that he was in fact falsely accused?
Preponderance of the evidence does have one thing going for it, that if one side has it, the other side automatically does not. I still don’t favor that standard.
I am honestly not sure what would be the appropriate standard for concluding that someone was falsely accused of rape. If one uses the “clear and convincing” standard, one could have a number of cases where neither the complainant nor the accused can establish anything to that level–even more so, if the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
@QuantMech I guess that “benefit of the doubt” was a poor word choice. I was just trying to summarize what I read after my post about the media. I wish to understand why “survivors” is very commonly used in reportage about advocacy groups, but “falsely accused” is not, only “the accused.” If you have a better (but succinct, please) explanation for this wording preference by journalists, I would be glad to hear it.
apologies in advance for commenting on a question not directed at me:
https://www.rainn.org/articles/key-terms-and-phrases
whatisyourquest: Since I’m very interested in how language impacts perception, it would be helpful to me if you gave a few specific quoted examples of language in news reports that you found slanted and troubling. It does seem to me journalists discuss the importance of labeling in these cases. Thanks in advance.
The NPR piece started off well by saying we shouldn’t pre-judge, but then seems to give up at the end when it says:
hebegebe: I am not sure what you are getting at?
As I read the article, one shouldn’t prejudge before facts are in. At a certain point, it will be possible to judge. Whether the judgement is correct is a different discussion. Different labels will be used at different points in the process for the one accusing and the one accused. At least that is my understanding of how this all works.
It would be useful to me if the English professor(s) (or anyone else reading along 
) had any observations they wanted to share based on current news reporting.
I’m googling “falsely accused” and see a lot of mainstream news reports with that phrase.
Looks like you’re describing the restorative justice process: http://www.npr.org/2017/07/25/539334346/restorative-justice-an-alternative-to-the-process-campuses-use-for-sexual-assaul . I think it’s very promising.
Most acquaintance rapes cannot be proven and never will be. That’s the nature of the act. He said vs. she said, where consent is a perfectly valid defense. Very rare that you have witnesses (Stanford swimmer) or video (Vanderbilt football). Can’t be proven via reasonable doubt standard in court; can’t be proven by preponderance standard in college tribunal either. Especially when many incidents occur in a fog of inebriation.
Dear Colleague didn’t change this fact. Revoking Dear Colleague won’t either. All you can do when litigating sex assaults is the best you can, which usually means no proof, no conviction.
So the focus really should be on prevention, counseling, restorative justice etc.
The flaw in Dear Colleague is that (since it was written by government civil rights litigators) it presumes that the problem (few guys get convicted and punished) is caused by poor litigation practices. Since those lawyers swing the litigation hammer, the campus acquaintance rape problem looks to them like a nail. So adding litigation resources and changing litigation processes will fix the problem.
Wrong.
It sounds like some posters are saying “there are some really good people on both sides” NO there are not. We need to stop making excuses for rapists and sexual assaulters. The restorative justice process is ridiculous. It is just a way for rich students and athletes to talk their way out of heinous crimes without any consequences.
@HarvestMoon1 - You are correct I base my opinion on what I know of Title IX from press reports. Perhaps press reports are inaccurate. Perhaps not. I have no way of knowing but there seem to be so many of them that at least some of them must be true.
I am not of the opinion that every single college and university in the US is biased against the accused in sexual misconduct cases. I am of the opinion that there are a significant number of colleges and universities with biased Title IX offices.
@CTScoutmom - I see a huge problem with believing anyone who makes a complaint. All people who make a complaint deserve to be taken seriously. They should not be waved off or dismissed. Their complaint should be investigated by someone whose only agenda is to get to the truth, not by someone who is inclined to believe the complainant from the start.
@mamalion- It isn’t misogyny to say that there are two sides to a sexual assault allegation. People who are accused of a crime or misconduct are entitled to have their side of the story heard. How is that misogyny?
@collegedad13 - Nobody here is making excuses for people who commit sexual assault. There needs to be some proof that person committed a sexual assault beyond someone saying they did it. People who are accused of a crime or misconduct should be able to defend themselves.
At the point that someone makes an accusation all you have is an accusation. The person who is accused should be able to defend themselves. That person should be able to tell the story from his/her perspective and to offer witnesses (if any).
Nobody should be branded a rapist based on one person’s say so. I do not think most people make up stories of sexual assault. Nevertheless someone COULD make up such a story and the accused deserve to be protected from such situations.
@Proudpatriot Most people as the Yale data suggests do not face a title nine hearing. If there is a hearing the evidence is already pretty strong. Nobody is branding everybody who goes to a hearing a rapist. If someone is believable a person could be branded a rapist based upon one persons say so. That is part of the American system of jurisprudence. Young black men COULD be targeted and killed by the police. Do you think they should be protected from such situations? Lets not coddle the men who are accused of rape and sexual harassment. There is way too much victim blaming going on. It needs to stop.
To say that someone was “falsely accused” is to buy into their representation of the situation. I would set pretty much equally high standards of proof needed to say that the allegation was false as to say that it was true. I wouldn’t have difficulty with accuser/accused. Usually, I would use the term “survivor” to refer to someone who has managed to live through a life-threatening situation. Not all rapes would fit into that category, but some would.
If you report a burglary to the police, don’t the police normally start with the presumption that you probably experienced a burglary (certainly more probably than not)? The more extreme skepticism that seems to prevail with regard to rape seems wrong to me.
I don’t “Like” northwesty’s post #114, but I think it reflects the general situation accurately, and I appreciate the post.
Only one dissent from it: I don’t know that there are data on the fraction of reported rapes where alcohol was a significant factor. My guess is that this would be lower than the fraction of unreported rapes where alcohol was a significant factor. But it si important to bear in mind that someone who is stone-cold-sober can rape another person, even on a college campus.
@alh Here are a few that I found after a quick search:
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/13/politics/education-secretary-betsy-devos-roundtable/index.html
“Those in attendance included representatives from a men’s rights group, as well as sexual assault survivors…”
ABC
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/betsy-devos-meetings-mens-rights-groups-sex-assault/story?id=48611688
“In addition to survivors’ groups and educational institutions, DeVos met with ‘men’s rights’ organizations, including the National Coalition for Men (NCFM), as well as groups that speak out on behalf of the accused…”
Nota bene, men’s rights is put in quotes by ABC
“Though the secretary refused to say whether the administration wants to amend directives to colleges and universities, survivors’ advocates worry…”
CBS
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/devos-says-current-approach-to-campus-sexual-assault-isnt-working/
“DeVos said she gained new insight into the devastating impacts of sexual misconduct across America by speaking with both survivors of rape and those accused of committing assault…”
NBC
“Jessica Davidson, managing director of End Rape on Campus, staged a protest outside the event along with a couple dozen survivors, family members and advocacy groups. She criticized that the event was private and that no survivors’ groups were invited for the announcement.”
“Meanwhile, advocates who have argued that the accused do not always receive fair investigations under the previous administration’s guidance welcomed DeVos’ new approach.”
NYT
"she will meet in private with women who say they were assaulted, accused students and their families, advocates for both sides…
This article was more objective. See the difference? I should have given NYT more credit.
WaPo
“But Andrew Miltenberg, a lawyer who has represented dozens of male students accused of sexual assault, welcomed the change.”
“Sexual assault survivors and their allies saw the rising numbers of investigations as a sign that the Obama administration was taking their concerns seriously…”
Ok, I could find more, but I think that I’ve supported my point enough.