<p>artsmarts… can i have a copy of that list when you get it LOL…</p>
<p>Fabrizio, yes. The other aspect that is bothersome to me is that issues that are tried in a court of law are supposed tried impartially. Now we can argue what that means but the point of fact is that a college is not impartial, they are involved party by virtue of the fact that they also have interests to protect (unlike theoretically a judge and a jury). tsdad can argue that the processes and procedures which apparently the federal government thinks pass the legal smell test are in place, but the bottom line is that the colleges are not impartial which does no service to the victim or the alleged perpetrators of sexual harassment or whatever charge is before the college due process gang.</p>
<p>Don’t worry artsmarts, it can get confusing here. And yes, I am now unastonished…well, mostly :)</p>
<p>Duh, yes, Fabrizio, I brought it up. It naturally follows the previously batted-about idea that nice sons could be targeted by a not-nice girl who later claims she was coerced. Or, a girl who claims that she was too drunk to consent. </p>
<p>Guys have the option of backing off. But, the thread didn’t acknowledge that. All parents (seemed to) want to post was extreme fears their sons will be unfairly put in a jam by a woman- and then expelled. </p>
<p>What’s a guy supposed to do? A really nice guy should be able to judge a situation and say, I don’t think so. Not tonight. To suggest a guy can’t stop himself could be seen as a degrading view of men.</p>
<p>I hope all the parents of sons show them either their school’s code of conduct re sexual situations or at least the one from ND. Same for parents of daughters.</p>
<p>Mom3- that’s a pretty harsh view of colleges and I wonder how you got there.</p>
<p>Too many time/years in HR.</p>
<p>I think you’re assuming that because some mothers spoke in defense of their sons, as I saw it as rebuttal to the “all men are beasties” tone that seemed to be developing, you’re assuming then that these same mothers don’t “get” that backing off might be an option. I think that’s pretty clear but the concern was what if a young man thought the sex was consensual and then the girl felt otherwise. I’m mostly referencing drunk encounters, etc. not clear out and out rape situations.</p>
<p>And yes, to assume that men can’t control them would be a pretty dim view of guys. But let’s be realistic, most of these kids are going to drink and drinking leads to cloudy judgment. I don’t think the mothers of the guys here are concerned about their sons getting into situations where they are going to be overly aggressive and rape a girl. I don’t think it’s extreme for mothers of young men to be concerned and to voice those concerns. No more than for the mothers of young women.</p>
<p>I remember an incident in my child’s 1st grade class where a young girl had written a poem, rather nasty really, about how awful boys were and the teacher had put it on the front bulletin board outside the class. A little boy I knew was very upset about the poem, really had his feelings hurt and pointed out to me that if a boy had written a poem like that about girls they might have gotten in trouble. I think the concern of the mothers here was that there was a tone developing that took a very dim view of the young men and most of them, hard to believe I know, are not rapists. The young men should be cautious as should the girls.</p>
<p>I’m still waiting on those names and schools lists, will forward as soon as available.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since you’re talking about “nice sons [being] targeted by not-nice girls,” did you consider the possibility that a “nice son” backed off but got accused of rape by one of these “not-nice girls” anyway?</p>
<p>Based on the views espoused by several parents here, the “nice son” should be suspended FIRST as a matter of procedure so as not to create a “hostile educational environment” for the women on campus. Of course his name will be publicly displayed for everyone to see in the student newspaper, maybe even a local or regional newspaper and the nightly news depending on how serious the school wants to show that it’s committed to “Title IX” / how vindictive this “not-nice girl” is</p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, please, now we’re the misandrists?! I’m not the one saying that guys should be disciplined even if they’re found innocent in a court of law! I’m not the one saying that it doesn’t matter what the judgment is, the guy is always guilty! And I’m not straw manning anyone either: in post #290, tsdad said “Just because a student or employee didn’t violate a criminal statute (either found innocent or a local overworked DA’s office doesn’t want to take on anything unless it is clear that they will get a conviction) doesn’t mean that the student or employee is the kind of person you want around your campus.”</p>
<p>A guy can certainly say no, I don’t want to have sex. He can certainly judge a situation and deem whether the lady-in-question is likely to raise a false accusation of rape should things not work out. But neither of those truths ought to be interpreted as suggesting that it’s somehow wrong for college guys to want to have sex. Neither ought to be interpreted as advocating that the standard be weakened to “preponderance of the evidence” in cases involving sexual assault. And neither has anything to do with Title IX.</p>
<p>Fab,
There are connections to Title IX in a few ways, IMHO.
- If a student is scared of someone he/she has to encounter in his/her educational community, the argument is that she may be able to take advantage fully of the education. Being raped, being sexually harassed might qualify for that.
- It is possible to imagine that unwanted, repeated activity related to one’s gender could be called a form of discrimination.</p>
<p>Now, does anyone think that the letter itself is in any way discriminatory?? I think it tries not to be by saying that both genders are the object of sexual harassment and sexual violence.</p>
<p>Rule violations and crimes that are committed on campus- the ones that do not involve gender or other forms of discrimination, such as drinking under age, theft, plagiarism- how are THESE handled? Same as in the letter, or differently?</p>
<p>
I think it’s important to remember the role of alcohol in many of these cases. It seems to me that the approach some of you are advocating would create a strange double standard: if a girl gets drunk, even if she knows she’s drinking enough to get drunk, then nothing that she does or that is done to her is her fault, while if a guy gets drunk, everything he does is chargeable to him just the same as if he weren’t drunk. That is odd to me, and I think it’s overly paternalistic toward women.</p>
<p>Perhaps if colleges were brave enough to crack down on underage drinking, these issues would be less common.</p>
<p>*Based on the views espoused by several parents here, the “nice son” should be suspended FIRST as a matter of procedure *
I seem to have missed that in the thread. NOTHING in the OCR documents says that. </p>
<p>Of course his name will be publicly displayed… Nothing in the documents says that.</p>
<p>See why I think the focus here is misplaced?
…
Yes, alcohol. Not an excuse. We know that. We know kids do stupid things. We know we did. I think if you strip away the extreme fears and hyperbole, we should all focus on helping our young 'uns make wise decisions. Not just blame it on youth or colleges. Because otherwise the results could be awful.</p>
<p>
I do recall somebody saying that he should be removed from the dorm based only on an accusation.</p>
<p>The law in 36 states is clear: if she’s not capable of giving consent (and that can be proven), it’s rape. Doesn’t matter if she had two drinks or 20. Doesn’t matter if he’s drunk, drugged, or had a bad day. Are there cases when a guy can’t tell if a woman is capable of consent? Well, there are cases of just about everything, if you look hard enough for them. I doubt they are very common, and in any case, in a criminal proceeding, the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard holds. </p>
<p>But that’s the law. Don’t like it, talk to your legislators. Here we are not dealing with a legal situation, but college administrative policy. They didn’t use a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard before the OCR letter, and won’t afterwards. And they aren’t charging anyone with “rape” but protecting women from “sexual harrassment”.</p>
<p>Back to post #220:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This means more to me than all the “what if” fears of good/bad boys and good/bad girls and good/bad staring and names being printed in the school paper and drunken sex ruining your life because she changed her mind. This is what it ACTUALLY happening.</p>
<p>Maybe I’m misinterpreting tsdad’s remark, “Just because a student or employee didn’t violate a criminal statute (either found innocent or a local overworked DA’s office doesn’t want to take on anything unless it is clear that they will get a conviction) doesn’t mean that the student or employee is the kind of person you want around your campus.”</p>
<p>Along with “So while a person might not be “guilty” under a criminal statute they still might have created a hostile educational environment on the basis of sex by their actions and hence need to be disciplined under a college’s judicial code,” my understanding of his views (as a self-described “former OCR investigator and manager”) is that what matters is whether the alleged perpetrator “created a hostile educational environment.” If he did, he needs to be punished; innocence in the crime of sexual assault is irrelevant.</p>
<p>Again, maybe I misread that, but if I didn’t, no, I don’t buy that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li>I read #1 as if you wrote “not” there. If a woman was sexually assaulted, I agree that she might not be able to fully take advantage of the educational opportunities provided by the university due to trauma. But it’s not the university’s fault that she was raped; it’s the rapist’s fault. The university, which likely “receiv[es] Federal financial assistance,” is not excluding her “from participation in, [denying her] the benefits of, or [subjecting her] to discrimination under any education program or activity” offered.</li>
</ol>
<p>She may be excluding herself through the fault of the rapist, not the university. Therefore, it has nothing to do with Title IX and everything to do with our court system.</p>
<ol>
<li>Well, sure, if a guy makes repeated unwanted advances on girls that he wouldn’t do to another guy, then yeah, I guess by definition he is discriminating against women. This does raise the issue as to whether bisexuals who make repeated unwanted advances on both genders discriminate, though…</li>
</ol>
<p>…but all of that is moot because again, it is not the university that is discriminating against women who are subject to “unwanted, repeated activity related to [their] gender.” It would be the men who continue to perform these “unwanted, repeated” acts, in which case it has to do with the police, not Title IX.</p>
<p>Fab,
I giess I am confused and out of touch. Are there not similar rules in the workplace that do the same thing, that is, put the onus on the employer to monitor and stop these types of activities, whether or not the employer is actually the agent?
Can an employee sue his employer for not protecting him or her from discrimination or harassment?
Sorry if I am mixing things up.
(Thanks for correcting my typo!)</p>
<p>F: Nope.
You really don’t see it. Or, I dunno what.
In the specific case of the documents, if the U does not respond, it is facilitating a hostile environment, allowing it to continue, breaching it’s fed mandated responsibility to ensure…</p>
<p>Tite IX has been explained. I wonder if you are now trolling.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think Hunt ia referring to my remark. I said that if a female who lived in my son’s dorm falsely accused him of raping her, I’d WANT him out of that dorm ASAP. Hunt said that SHE should have to move, not him.</p>
<p>I didn’t respond to that remark. Frankly, I don’t much care which one is moved. But I do think it’s essential that the two be put into different dorms.( However, if the allegation had become public knowledge–say the young woman who falsely accused him had told all the girls on the floor that my S raped her, I wouldn’t want him staying in that dorm.)</p>
<p>I think that’s common sense. </p>
<p>Hunt, your son’s a musician. Say he told you that two male students who live on his floor got drunk. They told him that they thought all musicians were “wusses.” They beat him up because they don’t like “wusses.” He complained to the RA. The RA said that since this was just an allegation, your S had to remain in the same dorm as the two guys that beat him up. The RA then informed your S that he was going to tell the two guys who beat him up that your S had made the allegation and an investigation would be conducted. If the allegation was proven by “clear and convincing evidence”, they could be kicked out of school. While the investigation was pending, your S and the two guys who attacked him would remain on the same floor.</p>
<p>I gather fabrizio would have the RA tell your S that assault is a crime. If your S wanted to do anything about the assault he can file charges with the police. Until such time as there is a conviction of assault, the two guys whom he alleges beat him up are presumed innocent. They and your S will all continue to live on the same floor.</p>
<p>There were no witnesses to the attack. Both the guys your S says beat him up swear up and down it never happened. You believe your S. He tells you that the guys are really, really angry at him for complaining. They are both mean drunks. </p>
<p>I gather you and fabrizio would tell your S that it’s important that the presumption of innocence be upheld. Even if the guys actually did beat him, it’s better for them to get away with it if their guilt can’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. he just better suck it up and deal with it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not odd at all. It’s based on statistics that there are documented cases of men taking advantage of women under such circumstances. Also it is scientifically proven that it’s not possible for women to rape men who are drunk or passed out. The men in such a situation can only be raped by other men.</p>
<p>So don’t just get emotional because you think your son can be made scape goat by some nasty girl instead focus on teaching sons some ethics that will prevent him to be in such a situation to begin with.</p>
<p>There are boys how drunken they might be won’t harm a girl and there are beasts who take advantage of the girl by deliberately making them drunk.</p>
<p>Why can’t men just be ethical and don’t indulge in sex when drunk or when the girl is drunk?</p>
<p>Drunkenness is not the issue. Ability to give consent is. And no one is “creating” or "would create a double standard. It is already the law, in 36 states as far as I know.</p>
<p>Here’s how folks at Berkeley explain it:</p>
<p>"Consent is defined as positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will. The individuals consenting must act freely and voluntarily and have knowledge of the nature of the act or transaction involved. It is a defense to the allegation of non-consent that a defendant held a reasonable and good faith belief that the complainant was consenting.</p>
<p>IMPORTANT! There is a significant difference between UC Berkeley Policy and California State Law regarding the definition of “consent” as it relates to sexual assault and rape. </p>
<p>UC Berkeley Policy has a stricter definition of consent. It emphasizes that the situation may be considered sexual assault or rape if the individuals involved did not actively and voluntarily give consent.</p>
<p>California State Law emphasizes that a situation may be considered sexual assault or rape if the person participating did so against his or her will. That is to say, that the sexual conduct or intercourse occurred even after the complainant indicated that he or she was not willing to participate."</p>
<p>In California, case law has established that consent can be withdrawn at any time in a sexual act.</p>
<p>Now this is the “legal situation”. The OCR does not address the legal situation, but the requirement that college administrations address sexual harassment.</p>