Warning For All College Men

Parents Forum
221

<p>The simple fact is that people have to be accountable for their actions. And unfortunately for boys and for girls being naive is not an excuse. Another reason why there is a judicial system to determine what is punishable and what is not. Date rape drugs are a crime. Drinking underage is a crime. Taking certain drugs is a crime. Stalking someone is a crime. Not helping a friend or someone who is clearly drunk and out of control to fend for themselves male or female, unconscionable. Two drunk people having sex behind closed doors after hanging all over each other all evening…pretty gray. The judicial system is not a perfect system clearly, but rarely are circumstances clear and there are clear avenues to follow. Asking a college system to make decisions that are potentially legal decisions is not fair to any party. </p>

<p>I actually believe that most people do take their own actions into account and would not abuse the system. But the system needs to be there to protect both parties not to be used as a bargaining chip for federal aid. There was some good with Title IX, I actually was on a high school boys team in a sport I loved before Title IX, my age is showing. No locker rooms, had to wait on the bus in my damp clothes at away matches while the boys showered, had to change at the high school before the matches because there wasn’t any accommodations at the away school and took alot of guff from alot of guys. That’s what Title IX was intended to help…not determining things like sexual abuse, stalking, etc which is covered by criminal law.</p>

222

<p>

</p>

<p>Depressing is putting it too mildly. But I have no recollection of ANYONE saying that on this thread. I’m not going to review all of the posts at this point, so perhaps my memory is faulty.</p>

<p>I personally would say that if my son and your daughter got drunk together and went to bed together and had drunken consensual sex, that the he didn’t rape her any more than she raped him. A big difference from his “forcing himself on her,” unless, of course, you subscribe to the idea that the boy has ALL of the responsibility and the girl has none, and the fact that she is drunk obliterates the possibility of consent and completely trumps the fact that he is equally drunk and that they BOTH drunkenly consented, even if it was unwise. If you are of that mindset, the fact that she was drunk AUTOMATICALLY makes him a rapist, end of story, simply because she is female and he is male. That is indeed the POV of some people on CC. </p>

<p>I’m a feminist. I don’t view women as hapless victims. </p>

<p>The guy who had sex with an unconscious girl underneath a table was a rapist. (Actually, saying that he “had sex with” her is ludicrous. She wasn’t there.) A guy who has sex with an unconscious girl anywhere, including in a room that she willingly entered before passing out, is doing something very wrong. If he is compos mentis, he’s a rapist. If he is almost as far gone as she is, and she passed out in the middle of sex, it seems to me he is not. There are shades of grey.</p>

<p>Look, I’m a big girl. I went to college in the 1970s, when, as some people say, “If you remember it, you weren’t there.” I will freely admit that there were occasions upon which I, or friends of mine, engaged in drunken encounters that we would not have had we been sober. There is NO WAY IN HELL I would accuse the guys involved of being “rapists” because <em>I</em> was drunk and stupid. I’ve never been raped, thankfully. I know the difference.</p>

<p>BTW, in the alcohol poisoning case you cite, IMHO of course those who organize this bullying are culpable. So, to a lesser extent, was the victim, who knowingly chose to engage in the activity. I’d say that the blame is at least 70/30, probably even more on the side of the organizers, since they were deliberately deceiving the poor kid.</p>

223

<p>I wasn’t going to go there, but yes, Consolation. I guess that makes me a feminist mom of boys…perhaps I should change my screen name. And there has to be more than drunk and stupid to make it criminal for both sexes and how this ties to Title IX is beyond my comprehension.</p>

224

<p>mom of 3, the long OCR document to which tsdad linked in one of his later posts explains it in detail. It is a very interesting document. Generally, I am impressed, in that it strives for fairness and attempts to recognize nuances that some CC posters do not.</p>

225

<p>All right…I’m reading…</p>

226

<p>“And why do universities suspend or expel students PRIOR to judicial processes? Did innocent until proven guilty ever mean anything?”</p>

<p>In a word, NO. “Innocent until proven guilty” only applies in legal proceedings. It is not a general principle that applies outside of legal proceedings. Colleges and universities discipline, suspend, and expel students for lots of things (start with cheating) where guilt in a legal sense is never proven. As regards this particular issue, they did so BEFORE the letter, and they will do so AFTER the letter. And they are not “charged with rape”. The institution is dealing with a violation of Title IX as it pertains to sexual harrassment.</p>

<p>Criminal standards and procedures are entirely irrelevant to the letter.</p>

227

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not a parent, but that’s not how my parents raised me, and that isn’t how I plan to raise my as-yet-unborn kids. My position is pretty clear: rape is a crime, hence allegations of rape should be treated as allegations of criminal activity, which in a court of law requires the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What kind of protection are we talking about here? My problem with your position is that you appear to be arguing that it’s OK for the accused to be presumed guilty and have to prove that he’s innocent.</p>

228

<p>

Yeah, I don’t think anyone has suggested that the guys involved have done “nothing wrong”. But there is often bad judgment and bad behavior by both parties.</p>

229

<p>fabrizio , you took that quote out of context. That’s dishonest.</p>

230

<p>

</p>

<p>Cheating, eh? I take it you didn’t catch the [Panos</a> Ipeirotis story](<a href=“http://www.businessinsider.com/nyu-professor-class-cheating-2011-7]Panos”>NYU Professor Catches 20% of His Students Cheating, and He's the One Who Pays for It) from last month. I find it interesting that a higher standard of evidence appears to be used for cheating than for rape. Note that Ipeirotis himself [preferred</a> to err](<a href=“http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2774254]preferred”>http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2774254) “on the side of having false negatives in the accusations, rather than false positives.” Several parents on this thread seem to take the opposite view: it’s better to have false positives (i.e. innocent men’s lives are ruined by false rape accusations) than false negatives (i.e. guilty rapists get away with it).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What does Title IX have to do with anything?! Title IX says “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…”</p>

<p>I don’t see what Title IX has to do with the standard being weakened to “preponderance of evidence” when it comes to allegations of sexual harassment, especially a heinous instance of sexual harassment (i.e. rape). As far as I can tell, Title IX is the red herring here.</p>

231

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t see how I took anything out of context. If you think I did, please tell me what the quote was supposed to mean.</p>

232

<p>OK I’m getting it I think…if I get the gist the language it deals with persistent and pervasive which is again something different than one instance of alleged date rape and akin to what might happen in a work environment…but I’m still reading…</p>

233

<p>In my state (and in 36 others I believe - you can check your state’s own statutes), in judicial proceedings, if it is proven that the woman is incapable of consent, the male is guilty of the crime of rape (unless a lesser charge is brought). It doesn’t matter if he was drunk, on drugs, or poisoned by testosterone. It doesn’t matter if she had two drinks or 20. If it is proven that the woman is incapable of consent, the man is guilty of rape. People found guilty of rape are usually called “rapists”. If you have a problem with that, take it up with your legislators, because it is the law, and I didn’t write it.</p>

<p>But what we are dealing with here is not statutory, not a judicial proceeding, and not a rape charge. The OCR letter deals with “sexual harrassment”, one of a multiple of offenses and conditions that make a campus feel less safe for certain protected classes. Colleges and universities dealt with this and other issues in an extra-judicial manner (whether it be cheating, stealing, carrying firearms, etc.) before the OCR letter and will do after. In the case of Title IX, Congress saw fit to protect certain classes of individuals to ensure what they consider to be a safe environment. Campuses have been operating under Title IX for over 40 years - without any requirements that standards be the same as those in a judicial proceeding. If that bothers you, take it up with Congress - I didn’t make the the law. </p>

<p>Frankly, I find the OCR approach quite reasonable, aware fully that it is open to abuse (as it was before the recent letter as well.)</p>

234

<p>As tsdad said, the law is subject to interpretation and can be enforced by different Administrations entirely differently. The letter is a political document, and I hope a subsequent Administration will repeal the new guidelines mandated in this letter.</p>

235

<p>Something of an example to recognize inflammatory media reports and threads and be willing to look at the actual documents. I hope anyone who read the Dear Colleage Letter, the background doc and the Guidelines now has a better idea of their intent.</p>

236

<p>

</p>

<p>I think the intent is nothing but mission creeping Title IX to have half-assed one-sided police powers. Look, [“the</a> sexual harassment of students…in the case of sexual violence…is a crime.”](<a href=“http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf]"the”>http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf) There is NO need for the Department of Education to get involved. Let the POLICE and the COURTS handle CRIMINAL allegations.</p>

237

<p>

</p>

<p>Equals severe as in severe, persistent, or pervasive.</p>

238

<p>^^ then the courts need to be involved, the jurisdiction does not belong to the college and they open themselves to legal liability of they are punitivie in the absence of something that is already covered by criminal law. I agree, if the colleges take this too far it is mission creep. Think about how businesses have to handle these situations… they really cannot go willy nilly letting someone go even with the concept of at will hire because it opens them up to exposoure to expensive lawsuits. Most companies large enough to be sueable follow a very strict process to protect themselves which also indirectly protects those accused of agregrious behavior, harassment and all those sorts of things. I think the OCR document is OK but personally I suspect the lawyers will tell colleges to put a process in place to handle these types of complaints. No college is going to kick someone out from one isolated complaint if it won’t pass the legal smell test.</p>

239

<p>Several posters have stated that double jeopardy, presumption of innocense, etc., don’t apply here because this is a civil, not a criminal proceeding–or not even a legal proceeding at all. Again, this is my problem–I have no trouble with the procedures we are talking about if it’s really a case of sexual discrimination or a hostile sexual environment–but those terms are being stretched to cover specific actions that are really criminal in nature–and the colleges are being pushed to use procedures that make it easier for those specific acts to be punished, even when the criminal justice system would (probably) be unable to do so. It appears to me to be a workaround to the problem that it’s awfully hard to prove in court that a person was raped–instead we’ll move the “trial” to a “civil” setting. While the person can’t be imprisoned, he can be subjected to pretty substantial punishments, perhaps substantial enough to have some deterrent effect. I just don’t like this weakening of our civil rights by this circuitous route. I wouldn’t like it if colleges were doing it on their own–but it’s worse if the federal government is making them do it–then it’s state action. It’s sort of like using “military tribunals” when you are afraid the regular courts won’t convict everyone you’d like to be punished.</p>

240

<p>One of my sons’ schools required students to take some online seminars prior to arriving on campus, including some on alcohol awareness and sexual harrassment.</p>

<p>One of the scenarios: A girl invites a boy to a party hosted by her sorority. The sorority provides alcohol and both students imbibe. The girl then invites the boy to her room and she supplies alcohol in her room. Both imbibe. They engage in sex. The next morning she regrets it. She files a charge. The boy is expelled.</p>

<p>My son was stunned.</p>

<p>I told him to take it as a serious warning…that in all situations, the boy is always going to be found in the wrong and suffer serious consequences as a result.</p>