Universities Under Investigation Re: Handling Sexual Assault

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And yet "many" thought the Duke LaCrosse accuser should be taken at her word.

Back in 2006 and based on opinions regarding race, college athletes, and strippers.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Back in 2006 and based on opinions regarding race, college athletes, and strippers.

Just have a look at that thread. I sure as hell wouldn't want Royal Ivy on a jury if I was accused of rape. The DNA comes back negative and to her mind, these guys just somehow tampered with the evidence. Some of the assumptions people made in that case were beyond ridiculous.

Do you think we've come a long way since 2006 and that since then, no men have been victimized by false allegations of rape?

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Just have a look at that thread. I sure as hell wouldn't want Royal Ivy on a jury if I was accused of rape. The DNA comes back negative and to her mind, these guys just somehow tampered with the evidence. Some of the assumptions people made in that case were beyond ridiculous.

Do you think we've come a long way since 2006 and that since then, no men have been victimized by false allegations of rape?

There are about a dozen current lawsuits in the courts right now brought by college men against their universities. And surely more to come, since so many schools are desperately trying to get on the "right side" of the OCR.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Just have a look at that thread.

I remember that thread very well. The fact remains that thread (and the public outcry over the Duke Lacrosse situation) was rooted in more than rape allegations.

It is an unfounded assumption to come into this thread citing that 2006 thread. Use comments from this thread if you want to accuse GCers of bias.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I remember that thread very well. The fact remains that thread (and the public outcry over the Duke Lacrosse situation) was rooted in more than rape allegations.

It is an unfounded assumption to come into this thread citing that 2006 thread. Use comments from this thread if you want to accuse GCers of bias.

You sure do love to tell other people what they should and do think and what they can and can't do.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by honorgal

You sure do love to tell other people what they should and do think and what they can and can't do.

You need to stand down since you just started posting on GC and are unfamiliar with the 2006 thread.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

You need to stand down since you just started posting on GC and are unfamiliar with the 2006 thread.

Oh I've been busy, I've read quite enough to get the general tenor.

But is this a GC rule, that members aren't allowed to comment on past threads that took place before they became a member, or is it just you being your bossy self again?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by honorgal

Oh I've been busy, I've read quite enough to get the general tenor.

But is this a GC rule, that members aren't allowed to comment on past threads that took place before they became a member, or is it just you being your bossy self again?

It is me telling you that you do not know the full context of Kevin's post and my response. Stand down.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I remember that thread very well. The fact remains that thread (and the public outcry over the Duke Lacrosse situation) was rooted in more than rape allegations.

It is an unfounded assumption to come into this thread citing that 2006 thread. Use comments from this thread if you want to accuse GCers of bias.

That thread stands for itself. In 2006, there were (and I guess still are) GCers with very clear bias. I don't recall you taking a strong position either way, but I could be wrong.

That thread stands as at least anecdotal evidence that there is a strong bias against individuals accused of sexual misconduct. The same goes for accused child molesters, child porn possessors, etc. It's one of those crimes where even if you can prove you're innocent (which isn't your burden at law), your reputation is tainted.

And I think that Duke story is a very good example of all of that. There isn't a better example I can think of.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That thread stands for itself. In 2006, there were (and I guess still are) GCers with very clear bias. I don't recall you taking a strong position either way, but I could be wrong.

That thread stands as at least anecdotal evidence that there is a strong bias against individuals accused of sexual misconduct. The same goes for accused child molesters, child porn possessors, etc.It's one of those crimes where even if you can prove you're innocent (which isn't your burden at law), your reputation is tainted.

And I think that Duke story is a very good example of all of that. There isn't a better example I can think of.

And all three crimes have a history of being hyped into epidemics and moral panics.