<p>It is important to do something about rape on college campuses.</p>
<p>It is not, perhaps, very useful to debate those who refuse to believe there is a problem. </p>
<p>There is a lot of concern about this drunken sex “problem.” I am really okay if we have to tell our sons not to ever have sex with a college woman who has been drinking. We’ve been telling our daughters for centuries how not to get raped. Why is avoiding rape a woman’s responsibility?</p>
<p>I am also okay if we just go ahead and expel a few underage drinkers knowingly breaking the university rules. That would solve the “drunken consent issue” problem pretty quickly imho.</p>
<p>It’s not every woman’s responsibility ordained by some law of order. It’s personal choice how you conduct your behavior in public and if you can mitigate the chance of being robbed or raped or assaulted then call me stupid, but I personally think I bear some responsibility in my conduct and have since I trotted off to college decades and decades ago, which is why I think that there needs to be a clear threshold for punitive action. </p>
<p>There’s a problem all right no one denying that fact, but it’s not as simple as telling colleges to operate as if one of the two parties is presumed guilty is wrong and abdicating one party of any personal responsibility whatsoever…that is called rape and that is criminal. </p>
<p>3boys, I agree with you when you say: “It’s personal choice how you conduct your behavior in public and if you can mitigate the chance of being robbed or raped or assaulted then call me stupid, but I personally think I bear some responsibility in my conduct and have since I trotted off to college decades and decades ago, which is why I think that there needs to be a clear threshold for punitive action.”</p>
<p>You are right. I don’t want to get raped, so I stay home in my burka, and I never speak to men. I expect to have an arranged marriage as dating is too dangerous. I think any woman who goes out in daylight, let alone after dark is asking for it, especially if her skirt is above the knees. . . oh, wait a minute, nowI remember, this is the problem with making women responsible for their rapes. Women can never do enough to stop the violence. If a grandmother in her bed is raped, she should have had a better security system. This thread goes nowhere because–if people don’t deny the problem (and I believe some are denying the problem)–they have the problem so slant that rape is the woman’s fault. If only she hadn’t gone to that party, if only she had stayed beside her girlfriend, if only she hadn’t gone to the all night library . . . </p>
<p>consolation: If the prohibitions against underage drinking on campus were enforced (for females and males) I am pretty sure at many colleges (full of type A students intent on getting ahead) that underage drinking would pretty much stop. Then there would be less chance of the drunken consent scenario that so many seem concerned about.</p>
<p>momofthree: I suggested we tell sons not to have sex with women who have been drinking. Your response is still that women must protect themselves. Let’s teach our sons to protect themselves from false accusations by not putting themselves in a scenario this may occur. If they behave irresponsibly, let’s blame them as we do women. That’s equality. right?</p>
<p>“This thread goes nowhere because–if people don’t deny the problem (and I believe some are denying the problem)–they have the problem so slant that rape is the woman’s fault @Niquill77 Or maybe because there’s a post like the above on every page.”</p>
<p>Usually followed by “That is not true. Show me just ONE example.” aka, "I only read the last 2 posts and I am too lazy to read the thread for myself, please find it for me. "</p>
<p>bluebayou, as I catch up on this thread, I wonder at your 6:36 statement, “But in reality, it is not a “person” but a female that cannot give consent.” </p>
<p>First I wondered if this denies the rape of men, but then got worried that you were making a rather large distinction between “person” and “female.” That is, using “female person” would still deny the rape of men, but would at least acknowledge the personhood of women, but then I wondered why you didn’t just use woman instead of female. Were you trying to acknowledge child rape, too? </p>
<p>You stated exactly what I told my DSs. While in college, stay away from drunk women and women who drink in general, as nothing good can come from hanging around them. The older DS took it one step further and chooses not to drink himself, as well. The younger DS is also saying he is going to do the same. </p>
<p>In this day and age, avoiding both females and males who clearly cannot control their behavior is the catch-all safe approach. My DS will not even walk a drunk girl home he says - he would call campus security to do that. Stay clear and wide is the best approach. Back in college, I walked several tipsy girls home over the years; no way would I do that today. </p>
<p>As for the expulsion for drinking issue, I could go for it, if it is limited to students who show inability to control themselves, both males and females. My DS says he knows students who drink and yet they are responsible enough to stay out of such situations. I understand that because my group of friends in college were just like that. We had beer etc. and really enjoyed midnight tap on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights, but never got into these kinds of situations.</p>
<p>No new statues are required either because both males and females who are so drunk, as to be useless to themselves, are both a danger to themselves and to the college community, as a whole. Colleges can simply expel for being a general danger to the community because those statues already exist.</p>
<p>The justification for practically every draconian law that has ever been passed is some combination of “tough penalties are a deterrent” and well, you won’t have to worry about the penalty if you just follow the law."</p>
<p>Somehow, that doesn’t stop people from (rightly, IMO) protesting such laws as excessive to the point of injustice. Consequences need to be commensurate with the offense. Expelling college students for underage drinking is wildly disproportionate, and I think there are a lot of parents who would think twice about sending their kids to a school known to have a policy mandating that penalty. </p>
<p>There is no definition of “drunk” in that.
It says “use of drugs or alcohol” so it is a much wider definition than what one would consider “drunk”.</p>
<p>And that is why, it would need to be a clear standard. </p>
<p>I think there is a difference between typical underage drinking, and drunked-ness to the point of useless and endangering. No need to tolerate the extremes because if the kid then falls off a roof or drowns in a pond, it is the college that gets sued. I would see this no different than speeding. There are different penalties for going 20 over the limit and 80 over the limit.</p>
<p>I doubt parents would have issue with such a policy that tries to limit the extremes.</p>
<p>Which is why I tell my DS to stay away from female students who drink in general. Nothing good can come of it. And he has found there are tons of female students who do not drink and lose it, so he is better off.</p>
<p>As stated up-thread, I am also troubled at the idea of universities getting involved in incidents that happen outside the immediate campus community. Presumably colleges have expectations and rules regarding behavior that students sign off on/are taught at orientation, and colleges have certain protocols in place for handling problems and complaints. It would thus be the responsibility of the injured party to go through the prescribed channels. That gives the institution some control over the handling of the process, and part of that is screening and giving appropriate training to the individuals in charge and/or ensuring they have the necessary knowledge and character. Students are instructed that certain problems are to be handled by the RA’s, others by the health center, others by campus security, and still others by various other campus staff. At D’s university, for example, there are advisors in each dorm that are trained in health and sexual issues who may be the starting point for reporting a sexual assault or rape issue and can advise on prompt reporting and medical examination. </p>
<p>But the university loses control and efficacy when a student comes to them days or weeks after the fact with an incident that occurred while she was doing a summer internship in a city thousands of miles away from campus, or is in Florida for spring break. Should the college intervene in such cases just because the accused and/or accuser is a student? D lived with a fellow student last summer, since both interned in NYC. Suppose D’s roommate stole two business suits from D. In the fall, D reports this to the school. Should the school get involved? Had something similar happened at school during the term, it could have been reported immediately to the appropriate campus authority, and perhaps the school could ascertain access to, or possession of the stolen property. They could check if the accused swiped into the building or not, or was seen in or near the victicm’s room, and they could search the accused’s belongings,. They could also determine whether the victim had followed college recommended procedures, eg. always locking her room door while at class. But when the alleged crime occurs when the students are neither in session nor on campus, it’s more complicated. The Stanford alleged rape incident happened on winter break in Alaska. </p>
<p>Maybe my SO is not too bright, but she is here wondering why the female did not report the crime to the police in Alaska, like she would have. My SO thinks a lot of people are advising females today to do some real stupid stuff devoid of common sense and not in their best interest.</p>
<p>In your suit example, why should the school get involved in an allegation of theft?
Shouldn’t people call the police first?</p>
<p>It seems that there is a conflict of interest for the school if they want to protect their reputation at all. The police don’t have that conflict.</p>
<p>@fluffy2017 - I forgot to mention that there is a “standard” for drunk, according to my DS’s sexual orientation guidelines given by his dorm advisors: it is if the female says she was drunk. I would be surprised if it is different at any other schools given they all try follow Title IX regs. So, there is no definition of drunk, but there is an unvalidated determination of drunk. Go Figure.</p>
<p>As my DS puts it, the male is automatically considered never too drunk even if he proves it with an alcohol level through the roof, but the female is always considered too drunk to consent once she says so, alcohol level not a factor. This explains why the colleges are getting sued from several different directions. It makes no sense. The double standards make the system appear like a parody of itself. </p>
<p>The girl did report to the police in Alaska, but also wanted action by the school punishing and removing the accused. My question is why the accused student was not arrested on the spot, and why he was even allowed by the Alaskan authorities to leave the state to return to Stanford after break? Is he out on bail, or was he never formally charged? It sounds to me like the latter, since one article says there is a report “pending” with the Juneau police. So if the authorities who were local to the incident and were able to investigate locally, make a determination one way or another, should Stanford get involved to make a different determination? </p>