Universities Under Investigation Re: Handling Sexual Assault

[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.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

LOL. Can't make up your mind?

[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.

[agzg]

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Right, and I'm saying that protecting innocent women from being raped is at least as important as protecting innocent men from being thrown off of campus.

I agree. But my problem, at least in part, is practical: Throwing innocent men of campus does nothing to protect innocent women from being raped. You noted two benefits of removal of the rapist from campus:

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I view the removal of a rapist from campus not just as a means of protecting the victim, but as a means of preventing more rape (and not in the "he'll go rape off-campus" sense, in the "rapists faced with consequences will stop raping" sense).

How does removal of an innocent man from campus stop him from raping if he wasn't raping to begin with? How does it protect the victim?

I don't know what the answer is, though I tend to think it lies with the courts rather than with colleges. I just don't think most colleges are equipped to effectively handle this kind of process. Regardless, I can't be supportive of any system that operates on the presumption that it's acceptable for the occasional innocent man to be kicked off campus, and quite possibly suffer long-term consequences for being labeled a rapist, for something he didn't do just because some people think that on the whole the greater good is served by that system. I don't think that's justice for anyone, including the accuser.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I agree. But my problem, at least in part, is practical: Throwing innocent men of campus does nothing to protect innocent women from being raped. You noted two benefits of removal of the rapist from campus:How does removal of an innocent man from campus stop him from raping if he wasn't raping to begin with? How does it protect the victim?

Of course there's a risk that an innocent person would get kicked off of campus. I just don't see why you feel that is worse than an innocent person getting raped.

ETA: It's not that I don't see the problems inherent in collegiate justice. I do. But until someone comes up with a better suggestion, it's probably the best chance we have of reducing rape.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Of course there's a risk that an innocent person would get kicked off of campus. I just don't see why you feel that is worse than an innocent person getting raped.

I don't see how the two situations are really comparable. The only thing which is actually preventable by a proper system is the not kicking innocent men off out of school. You can't prevent a rape that has already happened.

ETA: It's not that I don't see the problems inherent in collegiate justice. I do. But until someone comes up with a better suggestion, it's probably the best chance we have of reducing rape.

How about state and federal legislation to make sex crimes complaints in university settings mandated reporting like child abuse? I am not comfortable with university administrators handling these issues. We have a criminal justice system for a reason, and if there's not enough evidence to convict criminally, then we shouldn't allow men to be penalized simply for being accused.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Of course there's a risk that an innocent person would get kicked off of campus. I just don't see why you feel that is worse than an innocent person getting raped.

I have never said an innocent person getting kicked off campus is worse than an innocent person getting raped. I agreed with your statement that an innocent woman getting rated is at least as important as an innocent man getting kicked off campus.

My issue is with a system that increases the likelihood that innocent men will be kicked off campus because that result does nothing to address the problem of an innocent woman having been raped, to punish wrong conduct or to reduce rape.

Kevin, I think your suggestion of a mandatory reporting requirement is an interesting idea to consider.