<p><a href=“Confronting Campus Rape – Rolling Stone”>http://m.rollingstone.com/politics/news/confronting-campus-rape-20140604</a></p>
<p>In contrast to the Michigan case posted earlier, here is how they handled the situation when it was a football player.</p>
<p><a href=“The Cover-up of the Arrest of University of Michigan Football player, Brendan Gibbons, for Rape - Washtenaw Watchdogs”>http://www.washtenawwatchdogs.com/4/post/2013/08/the-cover-up-of-the-arrest-of-university-of-michigan-football-player-brendan-gibbons-for-rape.html</a></p>
<p>The Michigan case with Brendan Gibbons shows why women are reluctant to report rapes. His victim reported the (alleged) rape, and nothing happened except that she got threats from other athletes. If the police are going to say “We can’t tell whether it was consensual” what’s the point of even reporting? </p>
<p>I don’t know if anyone has mentioned George Will’s blistering critique of the Education Dept’s regulations defining sexual assault on campus, but in case you haven’t seen it, take a look. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-college-become-the-victims-of-progressivism/2014/06/06/e90e73b4-eb50-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-college-become-the-victims-of-progressivism/2014/06/06/e90e73b4-eb50-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html</a></p>
<p>Note the Swarthmore case. Anyone think that is rape?</p>
<p>Having sex with someone who said “No I don’t want to have sex with you.” Yeah. That’s rape. </p>
<p>Give it up. There is no one here arguing that no means yes. Not one single person. What is quickly coming to light is that colleges and universities have been put in the impossible position of prosecuting and judging situations that trample due process - and that can be the accused and the accuser. And the irony is that both the accuser and the accused are using the ridiculous Titile IX expansion of responsibilities to state their case. When the director of the Association of Title IX Administrators expresses concerns publicly within the last month or so that universities are making mistakes in their judgements you know it’s reached a tipping point and perhaps saner heads will prevail. And from the few links that have been posted it has not always been an accuser saying no at the time of the incident and it has not always been an incapacitated accuser pressing charges. I’m all for prosecuting sexual assaults…all for it. From the director’s comments:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and this:
</p>
<p>Given the rarity and scarcity of false rape reports, let alone any reports at all, I would find these kinds of conversations amusing if so many lives weren’t being interupted and sometimes ruined. Report the rape to the police. Make a report. Rapists are serial opportunistic criminals like all sex offenders. Report the rapes. The justice system protects the perpetrator. Conviction of an innocent is so unlikely it’s barely worth thinking about, let alone discussing. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with this. The problem I see is with the Title IX procedures. They seem to be more likely to convict and punish innocents. Both the Columbia and Occidental cases seem to be examples of this. And although I will probably be flamed for saying so, no, putting myself in the place of the woman, I don’t think that the Swarthmore case qualifies as rape.</p>
<p>One of the issues with the Swarthmore case - in which we’re hearing the woman’s side of the story, not the man’s - is that we’ve reached the point at which asking her any of what I think are quite reasonable questions would be considered unsympathetic victim-blaming.</p>
<p>I would hope we’ve moved past the point at which we think that if a girl dresses in a certain way she’s “asking for it,” or that having had sex once is an automatic invitation to do so again. But by the girl’s own account, there’s a lot more room for ambiguity here. These are two people that had a prior, and somewhat sustained, sexual history. They’ve decided to just be friends, but that doesn’t necessarily preclude hooking up, depending on what exactly was said, and if I had a dollar for every couple that said “we shouldn’t do this again” before going ahead and doing it again, I’d be quite wealthy. They’re sleeping in the same bed. She says “no” once (or rather, “basically” says no), but doesn’t seem to make any attempt to object more strenuously when he tries again - granted, he should never have done so, but this isn’t a case of a woman who could plausibly claim to be terrified by a stranger into silence; given that this is someone she with whom she presumably has developed some relationship of trust. Why on Earth wouldn’t you say “Look, I said no, and I mean it. Stop right now.”</p>
<p>Now, even so, if the circumstances are exactly as she has described it, I think it is rape. But given these circumstances, it is highly likely that the guy might have a different narrative that would change the equation.</p>
<p>If a woman comes to court and says “I was passed out drunk and when I woke up I realized John had raped me” and John says "no, she was awake and totally said “yes,” unfortunately, even though the woman is very, very likely to be telling the truth, it is going to be hard to meet the “beyond reasonable doubt” burden. I don’t think a college should be that constrained - if after listening to both of their stories and talking to other people involved, it seems pretty clear that, unless we’re dealing with a total sociopath fabricating a story for no reason, this was a guy taking advantage of a drunk woman, they should have the right and responsibility to takes measures. The consequences of not doing so are too dire; if we demanded a legal standard of proof, there would basically be no way of defending woman from predators.</p>
<p>But in a case like this one, it isn’t that it isn’t possible that rape has occurred, it is that the woman’s own behavior has, in fact, muddied the waters to the extent that without full corroboration from the guy, I can’t see a scenario in which expelling him would be remotely fair, or in which an investigation wouldn’t at the very least have to include some potentially painful questions for the woman as well.</p>
<p>I would also add that some of the other cases we’ve talked about are more egregiously unfair to the man, i.e, when a woman not only consented (albeit when drunk), but texted the guy telling him what a great time she had the next day and only complained months later. These kinds of cases are going to happen more often as we continue encouraging women to feel victimized and absolve themselves of all blame for their own sexual behavior.</p>
<p>Yes. I’m sure men are in way more danger of being falsely accused and convicted of rape than woman are of being raped on college campuses. I think this is worth more discussion. :-? </p>
<p>I agree with you, poetgrl, as you know, but it is tough to expect an innocent guy to say “oh, well, I know I’m not statistically significant, so it’s okay to expel me and brand me as a rapist for the rest of my life.” Of course, the ones we’ve heard about have brought suit and, one hopes, will receive redress, which will, one hopes, lead the Title IX adjudicators at their and other schools to conduct some self-examination. The woman at Occidental, for example, if the details are accurate, should not be allowed to be involved with future investigations. I believe that it is possible for the system to right itself if people are intellectually honest.</p>
<p>Ultimately, as Joe Biden said, we need the kind of societal change that has made gay-bashing unacceptable behavior that exposes the perp to public scorn. Yes, some still do it. but I think they are fewer and fewer every year. I think that the whole rape culture thing is complicated by the gross sexualization of little girls in popular culture that started gaining ground decades ago. We see it in the clothing sold for pre-pubescents. It continues in movies that assume teens are sexually active to a high degree, and anyone who isn’t is a “loser.” It morphs into “Girls Gone Wild” videos, and goes on from there. A lot of this is put forward under the premise that this represents female empowerment, but in fact it represents nothing more than increased female objectification. I’m all for young women claiming their own sexuality and being in charge of what they choose to do. I don’t see that in this stuff. I see exploitation that cleverly attempts to justify itself.</p>
<p>Which is why I’ve stuck with this thread. But I have hope that through the lawsuits a reasonable set of benchmarks will be forthcoming that allow college administrators to be fair to all. I don’t think the underlying premise of expanding Title IX was wrong, it just feels like it’s being implemented in an “un-equal” manner. No means no makes so much sense to me and if a woman is so incapacitated she doesn’t know where she is and can’t say no that does deserve protection - from friends, from roommates, from everybody that comes in contact with her, but it cannot be expanded to the point that it treats males unequally, it cannot be “used” by women to asset power over a situation where they had control but failed to utilize that power and it should have a time cap on when the reporting needs to happen. </p>
<p>The Swarthmore case is ridiculous. Good grief. She’s not even arguing drunk. She was in bed with him and was tired so she let him continue. By that definition, yes, every woman has probably been raped. It’s just sad. Why didn’t she go to the police? It’s obvious. She had no case.</p>
<p>The biggest problem with this entire situation is the abject failure of the system to encourage reporting and to successfully discern the guilty from the innocent.</p>
<p>In the Michigan case involving the kicker, the victim seems to have done exactly what she should do. Reported immediately to police, rape kit, evidence of bruising, he was arrested. What happened next?</p>
<p>1.The probably career minded prosecutor still did not wish to move forward with the case. Prosecuting Michigan’s imaginary heros is not popular.</p>
<ol>
<li>Other students and athletes, blame, harass, and threaten the victim. </li>
</ol>
<p>3.The University expelled him only after he played 3 more years of football and had completed his undergraduate degree.</p>
<p>This is disturbing.</p>
<p>Having said that, I understand the concerns people have about false convictions, especially when a conviction can mean 5-15 years in prison. I certainly do not want that to happen to my son. </p>
<p>However, you can’t hold up a judicial system that is convicting no one, as the model for justice. Justice has to have the ability to discern the guilty from the innocent. Currently, that is not happening in these types of cases since there are essentially no convictions. Therefore, it is not really a “criminal justice system” since there is no discernment of guilt from innocence.</p>
<p>If there is no way to make the judicial system actually protect the innocent and convict the guilty, then perhaps the Solution of Columbia students and in the recent Brown case is a good one. Publishing names of alleged campus rapists and detailed allegations broadly on campus, and via social media. Word spreads quickly and it would serve to highlight repeat offenders, and raise awareness of potential threats to public safety. It also makes it very difficult for serial rapists to operate in secrecy and with impunity. They may not be expelled, but may be ostracized, or find themselves constantly under a microscope.</p>
<p>Listed individuals could sue for libel, but a key component of libel is proving the accusation is false. If no one can prove rape to a legal standard, then proving no rape will be impossible too. The burden of proof would rest with the alleged rapist.</p>
<p>I think this could have a significant impact by shining a public light on the accused, forcing them to deal with negative publicity, and should be entirely within the law if done properly and prudently. Those who hold up the current legal system as the model should like this, since it should all be legal. </p>
<p>I know both of you to be supremely level headed and reasonable posters. Mom3 and consolation. We agree on almost all points. I’m not concerned with ppl like you thinking this thru. I just know that college campuses are dangerous for young women. It’s a more pressing issue that the real rapists not be allowed to hide behind these rare, sensationalized cases. It is very common for victims of rape to leave campus, to be forced to leave campus, to be labeled as troubled when they were not before the rape. I just worry more about that. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In a situation where one student accuses another of rape, a university making the wrong decision is going to cause serious harm to someone. </p>
<p>If the accusation is true, and the rapist is allowed to remain on campus, that is horrible for the victim; many victims in such situations end up leaving school, or failing classes.</p>
<p>If the accusation is false, and the unjustly accused student is expelled, then the innocent student is harmed.</p>
<p>I have no problem with using a laxer standard than would be used in a court of law. Preponderance of evidence is fine with me. If the university believes the accuser, then the accused rapist should be booted out. This is going to mean that some innocent students are expelled, but if no true rapist is thrown out if there is reasonable doubt, then the university is privileging innocent accused students over innocent rape victims.</p>
<p>No. Means. No. She said no. He had sex with her anyway. Was she supposed to get out a gun and shoot him? She said No. That’s enough, end of story.</p>
<p>The only thing ridiculous about the story is that any man would think that there was anything remotely acceptable about having sex with a woman who had just said no. It’s rape. Even if it’s your ex-girlfriend. Even if she doesn’t hit you. Even if you were in her room by invitation.</p>
<p>NO MEANS NO.</p>
<p>I won’t pretend I was in the room with that couple, or that I can read their minds. I can say though, that many a time I’ve seen a person say No to having another drink, yet moments later to have another. I’m sure having second thoughts occurs quite often on many topics. Is it possible No means No, but later the No could change to a Yes?</p>
<p>Are you guys saying that even if we believe her story, she was not raped? I’m saying that if we believe her story, she never consented. And if she never consented, then it was rape.</p>
<p>People change their minds all the time. But she says she did not change her mind. It’s possible that No could change to Yes, but in this case, it didn’t.</p>
<p>And can I just add that “I tried to do something that she had just told me she did not consent to, and she didn’t stop me, so that must mean she agreed to it,” is no definition of consent that I understand. </p>
<p>Imagine that when this guy initiated these sexual actions, you could ask her, right then, “Do you agree to this?” She would say, “No, I don’t, I don’t want this but I’m tired and it’s too much effort to stop him from doing something I didn’t agree to.” That is not consent.</p>