UVA thread...temporary

<p>I've noticed that there seem to be postings to the UVA thread but none are showing on the actual thread after 3:30 or so. </p>

<p>So...I'm starting this thread to continue the discussion...hoping it can be merged with the other thread when it gets fixed.</p>

<p>Carry on!</p>

<p>I like the [Amherst</a> policy](<a href=“https://www.amherst.edu/campuslife/deanstudents/handbook/studentrights#appendixb]Amherst”>https://www.amherst.edu/campuslife/deanstudents/handbook/studentrights#appendixb) lookingforward previously linked, though who knows how well it is carried out. I particularly like this part, where they make it clear that drunk is not the same as incapacitated by alcohol:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>"Where alcohol is involved, incapacitation is a state beyond drunkenness or intoxication. " Yeah, that sounds right.</p>

<p>I also notice that in the sexual misconduct tribunals they do two things that I had thought of and mentioned in the previous thread: they allow accusers to testify remotely (by video or something), and they allow accusers and respondents to ask questions of each other, but the questions are actually asked by the judge, who first screens them for relevance. </p>

<p>I thought those stats previously posted about Dartmouth were pretty interesting. I believe Dartmouth is on the DOE list of schools and has a pretty good party frat reputation (Animal House inspiration). They also had a high profile rape case this year – kid was kicked out of school but was acquitted of all charges at criminal trial.</p>

<p>You can use these stats to make a lot of different arguments going a lot of different ways.</p>

<p>In 11 years, there were 38 sex assault charges made. 13 (34%) resulted in no discipline because not proven. 5 (13%) resulted in probation. 12 (32%) resulted in suspension. 3 expulsions. 4 resigned from school before their case was processed. Every incident occurred while both accuser and accused were drinking. Cases used the preponderance evidence standard. The report doesn’t say anything about criminal process. My hunch is that no one got convicted.</p>

<p>My observations:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>There would appear to be a bunch of rapes here, but zero convictions/jail time. Is that what the victims wanted? Is that because the admin procedure funnels cases away from the real courts (i.e. sweeping under the rug)? Would there be more/less/same convictions if you didn’t have the Feds mandating the title ix process? Or would none of these cases (like the one that happened recently) be able to be successfully prosecuted?</p></li>
<li><p>One third of cases were unfounded or unprove-able. 45% resulted in minor punishment. 18% resulted in the perp leaving the school. Who knows if that reflects a good job or a bad job by Dartmouth. Are they steam rolling the rights of the accused? Or giving short shrift to victims? There’s no info on what kind of process is being used.</p></li>
<li><p>Dartmouth has an enrollment of 6400. So 3200 female students. So about one report per 1,000 female students per year. Over a four year college career, that would equate to one report for each 250 female students. We know there’s under-reporting, but how much?</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Unless you believe that 98% of incidents go unreported, the 1 in 5 stat would not apply to Dartmouth. Let’s agree that stat flawed should be permanently retired unless we are discussing Bosnia or Rwanda.</p>

<p>I hope this gets moved over to the other thread-- posting it here so I don’t forget. Here’s a NY Times article from a woman who had [a “bad sexual experience” at college in the 90s.](<a href=“Getting to ‘No’ - The New York Times”>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/magazine/getting-to-no.html&lt;/a&gt;)</p>

<p>She became very drunk at a party in college because a man kept refilling her drink and she kept drinking. She ended up in bed with him. She told him No, but he continued. She doesn’t want to classify her experience as rape. I, however, would say that when he keeps on after you tell him No, that would be the textbook definition of rape.</p>

<p>She suggests a universally accepted safe word to make people stop unwanted sexual activity. It’s not clear why No is not that safe word, but if the expression she suggests, “red zone,” is a way to convey the information “Stop! You’re raping me!” I’m all for it. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That was my reaction as well-- those stats don’t suggest obvious steamrolling or obvious giving short shrift to victims. I would expect that at least some cases where the accusations were true would correctly result in no conviction.</p>

<p>I do, however, think that Dartmouth was too lenient to the students who received suspensions. </p>

<p>I was thinking about the cases reported where a student burst into another student’s room without permission and began sexual activity with that person. I was wondering about the genders of the students involved. I’m in favor of gender-blind treatment of similarly situated students, but I don’t think that a female accuser with a male accused, versus a male accuser with a female accused, would be similarly situated for this fact pattern. </p>

<p>A woman facing an attack like that from a man would know that if the man chose to continue, nothing she could do would stop him. She’d be at his mercy, and that’s terrifying. A typical male student being assaulted by a female student, on the other hand, would know that he would be able to stop the assault by force if it came to that. In neither case is the attacker’s behavior acceptable, but in addition to the other bad effects of his assault, the male assaulter is terrorizing the female assaulter in a way that the female assaulter can’t terrorize her male victim. So I’d say the male assaulter’s behavior is worse, and deserving of worse punishment. </p>

<p>“She suggests a universally accepted safe word to make people stop unwanted sexual activity. It’s not clear why No is not that safe word, but if the expression she suggests, “red zone,” is a way to convey the information “Stop! You’re raping me!” I’m all for it.”</p>

<p>That’s crazy CF. Are you telling me that college men do no understand the english language? What makes you think a new word would work any better if a very clear directive of “no” is not working?</p>

<p>@HarvestMoon1, read the article and see for yourself. The author says that sometimes women are uncomfortable saying No, and would feel more comfortable with a safe word phrase. But she did say No and her attacker ignored it, so maybe she also thinks that some men are uncomfortable hearing No and would stop if they heard a safe word. </p>

<p>I posted the article for our discussion.</p>

<p>I think what bay told her daughter, something like, “Stop Raping Me” or “You are raping me” is very clear and understandable. </p>

<p>If guys are concerned about being called a rapist, this is a pretty direct way to bring up that worry.</p>

<p>Yes I like that as well @dstark. There is a threat of her taking action in that statement which, given the current climate, just might bring the guy to his senses.</p>

<p>Women are socialized to be nice, to get along, not to disagree. (Yes, yes, I missed that part of the indoctrination.) IF there is another way that they can get the message across without having to say No, when they want the action to stop, there’s nothing wrong with that.</p>

<p>I wonder, though. The woman in the article said No and the guy ignored it. Why does she think a a softer way would work better? Maybe because the guy was interpreting the No as the start of a negotiation rather than an order to stop?</p>

<p>The end of post 3 CF… </p>

<p>Be direct.</p>

<p>Don’t convey "Stop! You are raping me. Say it. Say it loud!</p>

<p>Actually northwesty, when I saw Animal House, I was convinced it was the Betas at UVa.</p>

<p>Note that, re: Dartmouth, nearly 50% were not concluded at the level many here are concerned about. Of course, one can say, yeah, but X severe punishments, if falsely applied, “may” be too many. But then one would be forced to acknowledge the same for the other side. I do think 38 is low, but we aren’t going to get far, revisiting that.</p>

<p>And I wouldn’t say, “My hunch is that no one got convicted.” Or, “appear to be a bunch of rapes here, but zero convictions/jail time.” I’d say, “I wonder how many were also taken to the police and what he results were.” Etc.</p>

<p>I agree, No should be clear. A co-worker once trotted out the old male joke that “For women, No means Yes.” But folks have got to get past the cave man crap. Honestly, needing to move to "red zone"because women aren’t comfortable with No just suggests a woman in needs to own that No. Reminds me of child counseling, where the kid gets to hold up a stop sign or hold her hand up, when the talk gets too uncomfortable. (Not to mention that No is a universal concept. Sheesh, “Hey, we’re in a red zone,” sure sound wrong to me-- sounds like a bit of, “Wow, this is red hot sex” or something. We teach little kids no means no.)</p>

<p>I was trying to remember what I last posted on the other thread, I believe it was in reference to the examples posted of the self-defense shooting and the store owner, and also to Cardinal Fang’s comment on taking things on a case by case basis.</p>

<p>That’s what I do in pretty much all situations—examine the evidence and stories on a case by case basis. It is difficult for me to understand some comments that appear to be blanket statements, such as if I doubt one rape allegation I doubt them all, or I think rape is not a problem/does not exist, or I side with the men. Just as in the self defense example, there might be scenarios where I believe it is self-defense, and others where I might not. </p>

<p>And let’s be realistic—in a self-defense shooting, there will be more evidence at the scene to go on than just the woman’s word. That’s the problem with some of these cases we have been discussing—that by the time the accusation is made (weeks, months, or even years later), there is no other evidence to present. Unless somehow the shooting in example 1 is unreported for months, and by the time it is reported the weapon has been disposed of along with the body, and the crime scene has been burned to the ground.</p>

<p>On another topic—This article indicates the RS author is writing a new version of her story:</p>

<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/friends-pushed-uva-jackie-call-cops-230527979.html”>http://news.yahoo.com/friends-pushed-uva-jackie-call-cops-230527979.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>“All three say Erdely has since reached out to them, and that she has told them she is re-reporting the story. Hendley told the AP Erdely apologized to her for portraying her the way she did.”</p>

<p>"She became very drunk at a party in college because a man kept refilling her drink and she kept drinking. She ended up in bed with him. She told him No, but he continued. "</p>

<p>Ok, maybe it’s because I’m a non-drinker, but I don’t fully get this. Unless someone has a gun pointed at your head, you simply don’t HAVE to drink anything anyone gives to you - whether it’s water, milk, grape juice, diet soda or Everclear. You set your cup down and you don’t drink any more. It’s not as though you’ll die of thirst in the meantime. What is so hard about that? </p>

<p>I do find it a weak excuse that “someone kept refilling your drink.” It’s the same kind of pathetic-ness where women who have just found out that they are expecting a baby feel compelled to “fake” that they are drinking alcohol at an office party by having a seltzer water or something, because heaven forbid someone just want a water or a soda or nothing to drink at all. </p>

<p>I am shocked to believe that rolling stone would be allowing that author to go anywhere near this story. Hasn’t she done enough damage? Oh yeah that’s right they let her publish it to begin with…</p>

<p>I agree, Mamalumper. I’m shocked too. How can anyone even believe anything she reports at this point.</p>

<p>What haunts me from the link:</p>

<p>"…many conversations were attempts to make sense of encounters that fell, in our own minds, into some murky realm…I was angry, I did not consider myself the victim of an attack. If I had been afraid of anything, it was only of some deeply awkward moment. I did not have it in me to make a scene…“There is a gray area in which one person’s rape may be another’s bad night,” [Roiphe] wrote. I was no ingénue, and had had “bad nights”</p>

<p>Gawd, that’s how it was. Murky. Oh, the awkward moments. Looking back at my group, we (the collective “we,”) excused a lot of it, saw it as bad nights- or found ways to ask friends if what they experienced was, in effect, just a bad night. </p>

<p>Part of this was us. Many felt a lot of freedom, sexual freedom was an option for many, and we tried to see the bad nights in that context. The author says it: I was no ingénue. In ways, I think we saw bad nights as just part of the price for our open interest in sex. At the same time, we were heeding the message to be brave and chart bold futures, go forward doggedly. </p>

<p>But now, now that our generation has grown up, looked back, re-evaluated- and the sexual climate has changed even more- I think we want to give our own daughters a different scenario than “oh, well.” </p>

<p>I’m not saying the pendulum has to swing the other way, nor that all unintended sex is assault. In fact, right now, I’m not going to comment on today’s gray, I’ll save it. But what I quoted sure resonated.</p>

<p>Btw, remember. Remember that you did not or do not believe the RS story.<br>
So why are you believing Yahoo or the words in that article??? I can just as easily see that “re-reporting” means the official RS correction, meant to serve RS, as well as the public’s right to a more correct version (even if it means disclaimers, etc.) Or that the exact phrase used was not “re-reporting,” but, possibly retracting or another word. And that RS would (certainly, should) apply the highest levels of oversight.</p>

<p>Don’t we all agree not to leap?</p>

<p>Totally agree</p>

<p>Well, RS is re-reporting the story and they have so stated and several key players have been re-contacted so there’s no leaping there. That is really happening and it should be very interesting to see the new version because there is quite a distance between a 7 frat boy pre-meditated gang-rape, an oral sex attack by 5 men who may or may not be members of the frat, and a fantasy conjured up by a disturbed young women who wants to make her Freshman crush Randy jealous with a fake story about a third-year complete with a hijacked photo and phony texts.</p>

<p>I’m also surprised the same writer is being allowed to give it another try because this was a bad one and she really can’t repair her reputation or the damage done to RS which was never all that credible anyway as a real news source but people didn’t get that until now. Anyway, I’ll go out on not very long limb and guess that most of her defense will be her insistence on believing the victim and whether or not there was a victim is incidental because there is still an epidemic. But, we will see.</p>