Universities Under Investigation Re: Handling Sexual Assault

[DrPhil]

Honorgal doesn't know how many people in this thread have front row seats to a college campus environment. Anyway, can I ask that this thread not repeat the last 13 pages. We get it. We get it. Whatever it is, we get it. Is there a newer point to make that can be presented in a manner that actually generates (friendly or unfriendly) discussion?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Anyway, can I ask that this thread not repeat the last 13 pages. We get it. We get it. Whatever it is, we get it. Is there a newer point to make that can be presented in a manner that actually generates (friendly or unfriendly) discussion?

I can't help it; I'm going to try one more time.

Originally Posted by honorgal

And I'm going to assume that you are being deliberately obtuse by mischaracterizing what I'm saying (figuratively or not) that there's "nothing to see here so stop talking about it." The media and activists keep insisting there is a crisis, ad nauseum. (ie, the reaction to Miss USA). The federal government is reacting to "the crisis" in typical fashion....more nonsensical regulations, more beauracrats, more sensitivity training, more money spent on fluff that drives up the cost of tuition. Does one have to have a hidden agenda to react negatively to that?

No, one doesn't have to have a hidden agenda to react negatively to things one perceives are wrong or misguided. But the way you express your negative reaction—the constant (and dismissive) references to unnamed but obviously sinister "activists" and "feminists," the random link-dropping, the mantra-like refrain that "they" claim there is a "crisis" supported by things like reference to an article about the Miss USA situation, where none of "them" actually make that claim—all suggest someone who is not objective and who has an agenda that if not hidden is at least personal or part of some other agenda.

But I'll bite: Exactly how is the federal government reacting with more "nonsensical regulations" and more beauracrats? Specifics, please.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I can't help it; I'm going to try one more time.

No, one doesn't have to have a hidden agenda to react negatively to things one perceives are wrong or misguided. But the way you express your negative reaction—the constant (and dismissive) references to unnamed but obviously sinister "activists" and "feminists," the random link-dropping, the mantra-like refrain that "they" claim there is a "crisis" supported by things like reference to an article about the Miss USA situation, where none of "them" actually make that claim—all suggest someone who is not objective and who has an agenda that if not hidden is at least personal or part of some other agenda.

All I can do is reiterate my position.

There's nothing sinister about feminist activists. They exist. Particularly on college campuses across the country. And they have been and continue to advocate for changes to the way college administrators process claims under Title IX and the Clery Act. This is simply a fact.

In order to gain traction and shape public opinion, they have vastly inflated the scope of the "problem" and conflated the small number of serious assaults with the much more typical instances that are represented by the example at Swarthmore. This is not some new technique, activists have been known to distort and exaggerate. One would hope that the media would report the facts a bit more objectively, but we shouldn't hold our breath, and they obviously haven't on this subject. Google "college rape crisis" and you get 12 million hits.

IMO, the policy changes that have been made and are continuing to be made are a dangerous erosion of due process for the accused. The fact that they are being made as a reaction to a distorted and exaggerated issue makes it all the more disturbing that we are jettisoning such fundamental underpinnings of our concept and tradition of justice.

A) One may have a different opinion and not be concerned with due process. B) Or one may think that it's worth it to erode due process for the accused, because this crisis is so severe that it calls for something drastic. To the extent that I can, I'm attempting to highlight the faulty logic of B) because if there is no crisis, we certainly don't need to take such drastic measures.

There's no hidden agenda other than I'm expressing my opinion on a message board where someone posted on the topic. I think the policy changes will do a lot of harm and negligible good. And that's usually what happens when a solution is devised for a non-problem.

[SydneyK]

Ok. So I just went back and read all 16 pages. I should've done that before posting earlier. (I even read the entire Duke thread Kevin posted, just for fun.)

I don't think honorgal is a troll.

I don't think it's either fair or accurate to say that either the victim is lying or that the accused is lying. I agree with Low D Flat - it's possible that both parties remember the same event differently.

I don't think our colleges/universities should have to shoulder the responsibility of determining someone's innocence or guilt in regards to rape cases. Nor do I think it's appropriate to oust a student based on an accusation of rape.

Having a husband who has worked in college administration does not qualify someone as having a "front row" seat to the inner workings of administration. I've personally been a part of many university administrative meetings, and to think that that qualifies my husband as a knowledgeable commenter on such subjects is laughable.

Originally Posted by honorgal

And that's usually what happens when a solution is devised for a non-problem.

It may be a non-problem in your eyes, but to a college/university administration, it's helpful and comforting to have a solution/response to situations regarding student-safety concerns.

Dr. Phil, in an attempt to bring something new to the discussion, are you familiar with the University of Kentucky's green dot/VIP program?

http://www.uky.edu/StudentAffairs/VI...n_greendot.php

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

Ok. So I just went back and read all 16 pages. I should've done that before posting earlier. (I even read the entire Duke thread Kevin posted, just for fun.)

I don't think honorgal is a troll.

I don't think it's either fair or accurate to say that either the victim is lying or that the accused is lying. I agree with Low D Flat - it's possible that both parties remember the same event differently.

Absolutely agree.

Having a husband who has worked in college administration does not qualify someone as having a "front row" seat to the inner workings of administration.

I never made this claim. I was responding specifically to this from another poster:

I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. When someone gets on a soapbox the way you have, they tend to provide some background for perspective

It may be a non-problem in your eyes, but to a college/university administration, it's helpful and comforting to have a solution/response to situations regarding student-safety concerns.

I find it hard to reconcile the above statement with your earlier one:

I don't think our colleges/universities should have to shoulder the responsibility of determining someone's innocence or guilt in regards to rape cases. Nor do I think it's appropriate to oust a student based on an accusation of rape.

Colleges are having to shoulder the responsibility, and they are ousting students based on nothing more than accusations.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by honorgal

I find it hard to reconcile the above statement with your earlier one:

One statement had to do with schools shouldering the responsibility for student safety, the other with schools shouldering the responsibility for determining guilt.

[squirrely girl]

Originally Posted by honorgal

Colleges are having to shoulder the responsibility, and they are ousting students based on nothing more than accusations.

Yeah... that's still not a real thing.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

Yeah... that's still not a real thing.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...campus-rapists

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

I don't think it's either fair or accurate to say that either the victim is lying or that the accused is lying. I agree with Low D Flat - it's possible that both parties remember the same event differently.

That's fair, of course people don't remember events in exactly identical detail*. My point, however, is that when you have two different stories, I don't think that the default should be that the accused is giving the correct version of events and the alleged victim is not. While that makes sense in the official criminal justice system, I think universities should use a lower burden of proof (as does Title IX).

Obviously a lot of people disagree with me, and feel that universities should not expel someone unless they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape occurred. Many other university honor code violations are handled in this manner, and I see no reason that, when rape is on the table, we suddenly need to give more weight to what is said by the accused and/or need to suddenly go out of our way to try to discredit the victim.

*Also note that consent, or a lack thereof, is usually clear. Rapists know what they are doing as they do it.

[WhiteRose1912]

Originally Posted by honorgal

Google "college rape crisis" and you get 12 million hits.

I have no desire to get involved in... whatever this thread has turned into... but Googling "college rape crisis" as opposed to college rape crisis (which turns up hits for college and/or rape and/or crisis, as well as their synonyms) gets 89k results, not 12mil. I don't think any given quantity of search results lends credence to anything, but I couldn't let that slip.