<p>I think part of the problem here is that in the past, the boy didn’t get expelled, even if the facts were much, much more egregious than those in the example. He still probably won’t get expelled in that situation, most of the time. So, naturally, there was a reaction to try to fix this problem–that seminar is one of the tools, and so is the changes in procedure. I just think some of the changes go too far.</p>
<p>“Please don’t think the majority of guys are potential rapists that are undeserving of due process and all women are potential victims. Please teach your daughters to be cautious, I want my son to be careful also. Personal responsibility is important for both genders and NO I don’t think the girl who is dressed in the short skirt, skimpy top etc…is bringing it on herself!”</p>
<p>I just found myself caught up in this discussion for about half an hour. Have never posted here before but this “staring” being sexual harassment discussion fascinates. </p>
<p>I’m with whoever posted this, sorry can’t remember where in the posts this was. </p>
<p>I am a much older parent who attended college during the sexual revolution of the 60s. While I totally agree that wearing certain types of clothing should never bring about a “bringing it on herself” comment I would like to offer a personal take. </p>
<p>I was always aware when I went out in a mini skirt (and my skirts were very mini) and other revealing items that I was wearing these items partially to draw attention. Yes, it was also a fashion statement but I think that all young women should be well schooled in the conscious and sub-conscious motivations for wearing clothing that might be stylish but revealing. I had a few moments back then when I found myself annoyed or perplexed because what I was wearing drew comments and stares and being a budding feminist I probably had a few moments where I thought “sexual harassment.” (Can’t remember for sure, that’s how old I am…) But it dawned on me early on that I had control over the situation and the solution was to only wear the revealing items when I was in the mood and mind-set where the attention didn’t bother me. I realized early on that I could own the reaction by the way I dressed. </p>
<p>In fact probably the closest-call I ever had to an attack happened when I was wearing baggy overalls and tee-shirt which has always made me find this “bringing it on herself” kind of comment questionable.</p>
<p>This staring concept makes me very nervous, hopefully there’s some logic being used if this is a definition of sexual harassment. One person’s stare can be another person’s gazing off into space.</p>
<p>As for the mentioned situations where there was drinking and perhaps drugging, boy, I don’t know, just tell your kids to stay away from those situations. For the girls or boys for that matter, if you’re going to be somewhere where there is drinking, even in a bar, always order bottled items and/or never ever ever leave your drink unattended on a table.
No punch bowls, go with a friend who is responsible enough to take you home if you are getting too drunk, leave with the friends you came with. If you meet someone you’re attracted to they’ll be just as nice the next day when you meet them for coffee, never go home with someone you don’t know especially if you’ve been drinking.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s be realistic. All it takes is one angry phone call from an outraged parent to get a college involved (what if the shoe were on the other foot?) Having a framework in place they can fall back on when the pit hits the shan, actually gives the college a defense against charges that they acted arbitrarily and capriciously (a standard which usually only applies to government entities, but as long as we’re drawing comparisons between campus and the real world – that’s the nearest basis for a liability suit I can think of.)</p>
<p>On second read I know this advice all sounds so unrealistic and this is definitely a case of do as I say not as I did. I probably would have rolled my eyes at this advice but perhaps if it had been given I might have thought about it, taken heed once in awhile and avoided a few close calls. But again, as I said, sexual aggression is not about clothing. The clothing issue is not about rape, rapists are triggered by much more complex motivations, but clothing does send messages about who you are whether male or female and whether you’re talking job interview or going to a party.</p>
<p>One last clarification:
by this “never go home with someone you don’t know especially if you’ve been drinking.”
I actually mean “never accept a ride home from someone you don’t know.” Just wanted to clarify LOL</p>
<p>“Staring”. Without knowing the context, staring can be part of stalking or similar threatening and criminal behavior. Many students, male and female, are victimized by this including being followed; waiting outside of the victim’s classes or residence; consistent emailing and/or telephone calls; constant requests for dates. This may or may not not be covered by Title IX since some of these issues involve same sex, but it could be. These matters can and should be referred to campus threat assessment teams and University police departments. This type of behavior, even if not covered by Title IX, and not raised to a criminal level, would/could/should be covered by campus codes of conduct.</p>
<p>[UHS</a> - Stalking Information](<a href=“http://www.uhs.wisc.edu/assault/stalking.shtml]UHS”>http://www.uhs.wisc.edu/assault/stalking.shtml)</p>
<p>Fabrizio- I think you should read tsdad’s posts again. Why can’t one recognize that whether the accuser brings this to the police or not, the school must still investigate, because it involves students.<br>
*Add: each school has a Code of Conduct, covering all sorts of expectations.</p>
<p>Mom3 and others- of course the courts should be involved; not all students take it to the police. The school is obligated to respond, nonetheless. 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. I think that’s what the DCL is telling. Ensure processes are in place. No one is saying kick out a kid; they ARE saying, don’t turn a blind eye, don’t wait, ensure both sides get equal opportunity to defend their positions- but also take steps to protect the accuser from further harm, during the investigation.</p>
<p>Hunt: double jeopardy applies to the US or state govt prosecutions- not, here, a college. DJ also applies, in its strictest interpretation, to threat of loss of life, limb or property- not college status. You can see explantions in legal dictionaries. Again, some of this is a crime- and we all agree police should be brought in- but, for umpteen reasons, many women have not and will not and the college’s responsibility does not end there. the colleges are being pushed to use procedures that make it easier for those specific acts to be punished, NOT my interpretation. I say, the colleges are being pushed to acknowledge and act, protect the accuser and ensure equal rights to the accused. How the school punishes, in the end, is at their discretion- complain to them. </p>
<p>Boysx3- the boy is not always going to be “found wrong and suffer serious consequences.” The OCR allows for various results, including mediation and counseling.<br>
PLEASE remember, the case where DH was part of the review comm occured years ago (6?) - this is not new. Nowhere does OCR say a kid must be expelled. An individual college may have that policy.</p>
<p>Remember, staring is a component of harassment. Staring, in itself, by itself, may not constitute a threat. See tsdad’s words. The Guidelines pretty clearly speak of “context.”</p>
<p>Every time someone brings up that some boy might get expelled for staring, I wonder just how easy it is to manipulate opinion.</p>
<p>So we make a differentiation between staring and stalking. The examples you cite are certainly within my definition of stalking behavior. Staring can become a little more subjective and difficult to pinpoint as to intent. However within most people’s “logic” there’s staring and then there’s staring, particularly if one’s asked to cease and refuses.</p>
<p>Tsdad stated:
“Many students, male and female, are victimized by this including being followed; waiting outside of the victim’s classes or residence; consistent emailing and/or telephone calls; constant requests for dates.” which is what I am responding to.</p>
<p>As for anyone male or female being expelled for staring, this seems to be where some logic in definition would have to come into play. Am I naive, I find it difficult to believe that just staring without prior background or incidences could ever be grounds for being expelled.</p>
<p>
Well, “never go to their home if you don’t know them and you’ve been drinking” is also sound advice! Does anyone really think having sex with someone you don’t even know is a good idea? With the risk of pregnancy, herpes, AIDS, syphilis, and a host of other STD’s? Not to mention the various psychological ramifications? Random hook-ups really aren’t worth it, for plenty of reasons.</p>
<p>
I predict that if the change in procedures doesn’t result in more punishment, you will see another letter spelling out the kinds of sanctions that will be necessary to constitute compliance with Title IX. I certainly think colleges have done a poor job with respect to this issue, but turning them into a surrogate criminal prosecution system with relaxed standards is not the answer, in my opinion.</p>
<p>? What makes you think “colleges have done a poor job with respect to this issue?” Can you refer us? </p>
<p>No one is turning them into “a surrogate criminal prosecution system.” No One. Well, except some posters. “Criminal” would be left to the courts system. </p>
<p>If you had a daughter who accused, what would you want the college to do? If she refused to deal with the police, what would you want the college to do? Think about it.</p>
<p>Well, the reason I think colleges have done a poor job is that I believe people when they say that there have often been no consequences in egregious cases.</p>
<p>As for whether colleges are being turned into a “surrogate criminal prosecution system,” it’s a matter of opinion, but I happen to think that’s the effect (and probably the intention) of the OCR letter that we’re talking about here.</p>
<p>As for what I would want a college to do–I would want it to treat such an allegation in the same manner that it treated any other allegation of serious misconduct by one student against another. What would you want?</p>
<p>OCR is about process. Did you have a process in place; was it followed; were males and females, blacks and whites, disabled and non-disabled treated the same? OCR can, but rarely disputes the outcome of a decision if the recipient has a fair and equitable system in place and follows it. </p>
<p>For example, in the analysis of the Department of Education’s Section 504 regulation you can find the following: </p>
<p>**It is not the intention of the Department, except in extraordinary circumstances, to review the result of individual placement and other educational decisions, so long as the school district complies with the process requirements of this subpart <a href=“concerning%20identification%20and%20location,%20evaluation,%20and%20due%20process%20procedures”>/b</a>. However, the Department will place a high priority on investigating cases which may involve exclusion of a child from the education system or a pattern or practice of discriminatory placements or education.</p>
<p>[34</a> CFR Appendix A to Part 104 - Analysis of Final Regulation - Code of Federal Regulations - Title 34: Education - Subpart G: Procedures - Id 19756869 - vLex](<a href=“http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/appendix-104-analysis-final-regulation-19756869]34”>http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/appendix-104-analysis-final-regulation-19756869)</p>
<p>
I understand what you’re saying, but in my opinion, the particular letter we’re talking about gets into the specifics of the process too much. When the new letter on appropriate sanctions comes out, it will also be couched in terms of process.</p>
<p>Sylvan 8798 writes
"Random hook-ups really aren’t worth it, for plenty of reasons. "</p>
<p>Well put. My generation had so little sex education (high school grad 1966) and also were dealing with a climate of “sexual revolution.” I would suspect that most college attending flower children found out about STDs through personal experience. My high school “sex ed” was only focused on pregnancy and in a very unrealistic way. AIDS and HIV were still off in the future. </p>
<p>Certainly this college age generation is much better educated but I think they still deal with the ramifications of poor decision making. I don’t think random hook-ups are a thing of the past at all nor are regrettable decisions made while drinking or taking drugs. And in some ways the stakes are much higher today.</p>
<p>Hunt- If a surrogate criminal system is the effect, I think it’s because a college’s own Code of Conduct spells out severe penalties. One school could vary from another. Parents and kids might want to explore that, as well as all the other details, when choosing schools to apply to. </p>
<p>I would want a college to immediately listen to my daughter, have trained staff she could deal with, refer her to counseling, if she wished, offer to support her in reporting to the police and/or getting medical attention, inquire whether she needed personal protections in the dorm, en route to class or in other public scenarios, respond to any request that her identity not be released, except as required- and start an investigation of their own. Isn’t this what the DCL and Guidleines state?</p>
<p>Lookingforward:</p>
<p>These are the exact kind of things that OCR expects out of colleges; that some one pay attention and take appropriate action or make appropriate referrals.</p>
<p>Nobody here is complaining about any of those elements.</p>
<p>tsdad, thanks for being here. </p>
<p>Hunt, several posters are complaining that the issue shouldn’t be handled by the college- that it is criminal and the police should deal with it. Some imply “only” the police." When the talk went to hyperbole- a sweet son getting expelled for looking at a girl, things went nuts.</p>
<p>IMO, the OCR telling schools to ensure those elements are in place is positive.</p>