<p>
</p>
<p>Kind of hard not to get caught up in everything when may have been deriding the greek system, as a promoter of bad behavior; sororities are part of the greek system, so they got swept up in the wide net-casting approach.</p>
<p>*In its statement, U.Va. said that the suspension’s purpose “was to give the University and Greek leadership a pause to identify solutions that would best ensure the well-being and safety of students.”</p>
<p>“This important collaborative work continues, and the reinstatement of Greek activities on Jan. 9 will be in conjunction with a new Fraternal Organization Agreement that will enhance the safety of members and their guests,” the statement said.*</p>
<p>“With regard to the fraternities, her decision not to lift the ban makes me wonder if UVA has more information on a fraternity other than Phi Psi. For example, if UVA’s investigators have identified the <em>real</em> Drew and he is a member of another fraternity, but they do not want to disclose this information yet, so they are keeping the ban on.”</p>
<p>She could have easily said she was waiting until the investigation was complete, instead she said until the new agreement is completed which they will work on over winter break. According to my son, who is a recent UVA alum and was part of the fraternity system, she has been against the Greek system since she arrived. I am not against putting in improvements ever, but to continue the suspension as a bargaining chip is not fair to the young adults. There is no evidence at all yet that even 9 of them have done anything wrong (But If they did they belong in jail) and yet 30% of the schools population is being punished. It isn’t fair. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This was D’s take on Sullivan as well. I think the revisions to the FOA would impact fraternities far more than the sororities - I believe they are still permitted to hold chapter meetings and philanthropic events. Women’s recruitment is slated to begin January 9th - when the women move back to the dorms early. </p>
<p>Clearly a rape victim’s case is stronger the more evidence she has. More than he said/she said. It’s more believable if its reported immediately for example. And I understand women who don’t want to report against a powerful man. Very few believed Juanita Broadrick (or wanted to believe her). She reported just to a friend at first and didn’t make any public statement about it until years later. </p>
<p>In Jackie’s case I hope her lawyer is telling her to take her evidence to the police. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very well said. </p>
<p>I would like to hear rational objections to this.</p>
<p>Here is the article in the Cav Daily</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2014/12/president-creates-ad-hoc-committee”>Ad hoc committee addresses University culture, Greek life, sexual assault - The Cavalier Daily - University of Virginia's Student Newspaper;
<p>There are comments in there about Charlottesville “having problems with privilege” etc and I have seen professors on CNN talking about how terrible it is the the fraternities hold parties with monitors at the door deciding who can enter and who cannot based on what they look like.</p>
<p>I ask you this, who gives these fraternities this power? The same students who clamor to enter their parties. There are 30 some odd fraternities on campus but only a few who operate this way, the rest are just stereotyped to be like that. The rest throw parties and there is no one at the door monitoring. These are not the “nerdy” frats, there are girls there etc with plenty of room for more (too crowded from me but I’m old). If the students stopped worrying about which frat was “top tier” and just tried to make friends and have fun they wouldn’t have anything to complain about. The students themselves give these select frats (Really like 4 or 5 of 30 something) all the power they resent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And this is why everyone and every entity publicly named should get a lawyer. Just calculate the costs of this approach, and it shows how it does not make any logical sense. </p>
<p>Yes, something darn sure looks like it happened to Jackie, but as the poster above notes, no one has clue as to what, who, when etc. Yet, names are being named, places being identified, entities being sanctioned, etc. all PUBLICLY, as POSSIBILITIES??? Sorry, the trauma of rape aside, it is unacceptable to think that other people’s lives and reputations are acceptable collateral damage for someone sorting out his or her memory.</p>
<p>What intelligent person would even think that someone has right to drag others through the mud without even knowing if it is the correct people being dragged through the mud? If Jackie is partially or all wrong about whom she is identifying, look at all the money, time and reputation damage she and the RS have cost them? If she is wrong, she can never pay them back, in any form. </p>
<p>Regardless of the crime, I am of the view that other people’s lives and businesses are not anyone else’s to PUBLICLY use in this way. Name names, identify places etc after an investigation and when there is some sense that you are not causing harm to the wrong people, not before. </p>
<p>And I use the word publicly on purpose. It would just fine if Jackie were naming names and identifying places etc. to authorities to verify that at least they have the correct people involved. But to do it publicly when one is unsure is just plain wrong. </p>
<p>I totally agree with you awcntdb!</p>
<p>There are 12 lawsuits a year…a year.</p>
<p>A man is rip roaring drunk and lying in bed and in no condition to consent. Another man who is wasted walks into the room…lies down and sticks it in the first man’s rear end.</p>
<p>The first man doesn’t remember anything. The second man doesn’t remember much either. There was a tube of lube sitting on the dresser. </p>
<p>Was the first man mentioned raped? </p>
<p>I agree also awcntdb. Apparently she is upset that her last name and photo have been identified but has few qualms that she maligned every man at Phi Kappa Psi. </p>
<p>SW and AW:
</p>
<p>I don’t know about others. What I do know is that many claims are not taken at face value (and I am talking about your definition of FV, which btw is the correct one). I don’t think FV means “arresting, charging, and prosecuting on the faith of the accusers word”. The problem is that problems like those in the NOLA link are not just a statistical outlier. Those women’s claims weren’t believed right from the start. 60% not even investigated at all? just hang up and forget the caller even contacted the police? seriously?</p>
<p>Suppose that I’m raped by a fellow student. I was a sober freshman. I told my roommate that I was going to the chemistry TA, who lived in my dorm to get an explanation to a chemistry problem. I went to the lounge, where the TA convinced me to go back to his room where it was more quiet and he had the chemistry text that into his room to get an explanation for a chemistry problem, and he overpowered me and raped me. I returned, crying, to my room, where my roommate saw me crying and convinced me to call the police.</p>
<p>The police say, we believe you, but we can’t bring a case. Or, they bring the case, and the guy is acquitted because he denies the rape and says there was consensual sex, and he wasn’t guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But in this particular case, there is clear and convincing evidence that the guy raped me.</p>
<p>Are those of you who say keep the college out of this saying that even though there is clear and convincing evidence that the chemistry TA raped me, the college should do nothing? They believe the guy is a rapist who preyed on another student, but they should do nothing?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am saying </p>
<p>1) Let’s say there are 100 cases on male on female rapes on campus. (Rape, as in penetration occured, and not sexual assault e.g., unwelcome touching.)</p>
<p>2) Let’s say 60 of them are from drunk stranger sex. (Which is about right from the CDC survey.)</p>
<p>3) Let’s say 20 of them are from getting-high stranger sex. (Which is also about right from the CDC survey.)</p>
<p>4) Now there is remaining 20 cases, where either force was used, or threat of force was used, or the girl was deliberately drugged.</p>
<p>I am saying that the remaining 20 cases are likely commited by sociopaths. It is generally estimated that ~1% of the population are sociopaths. You can’t legislate or prosecute this percentage down. It is what it is. Of course, not all sociopaths rape. If you believe in reported statistics, even the CDC statistics which is the source of the infamous 1-in-5 number, incidence of rape is about 1%, and the case #4 as above is about 0.2% (20% times 1%). In other words, incidence of male on female rape by sociopaths is at most 0.2%. Since sociopaths are likely to commit multiple rapes, this means some 0.1-0.2% of the collge boys are sociopaths who commit rapes. </p>
<p>If one wants to impact the incidence of rape down, that’s not the place to look. You can coach the remaining 99.8-99.9% of college boys all about respecting women, but guess what? They are behaving properly already. They may not be perfect gentlemen, as there are still cases of unwelcome touching, but they are not rapists, and they can’t become less of a rapist if they are already not rapists. So to focus on the 99.8-99.9% of the population with more legislation or coaching is pointless. All that does is criminalize their perfectly legal behavior (aka switch from No is No to Yes is Yes). </p>
<p>As for the remaining 0.1-0.2% of the college boys who may be sociopaths, well, it is really what it is, unless we consider screenings at birth and eugenics, or something stupid like that. Some crime will always be with us. We want to have a balance between becoming a police state and becoming Rwanda. And we are not Rwanda, not even close. (That’s why quotes from Tutu are completely out of place when talking about the USA).</p>
<p>However, what can be impacted is the remaining 80% (Cases #1 and #2 above) where there is stranger sex coupled with drug and alcohol use. Why not focus on that? </p>
<p>That’s all I am saying.</p>
<p>PS: I do know why people do not want to focus on #1 and #2, because it is considered to be blaming the victim. Also, most parents believe that their girls are perfect ladies and will do no such thing, while the boys are brutes. In reality, the party culture is gender neutral. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, because if someone can’t consent, they didn’t consent.</p>
<p>CF they should do something, but prosecution isn’t one of them, that should be left to the real court system. They should assist the police with the investigation as necessary, they should help counsel the victim etc. </p>
<p>They seem to be really messing up with the rest of it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just so I understand, you are saying that these 80 cases are rape, but not really rape, and we shouldn’t be concerned about them? Also, did you mean to say “drunk stranger sex,” or “drunk sex” among people who were acquaintances?</p>
<p>Why wasn’t the second man raped, too? He couldn’t consent either, right?</p>
<p>What if no one “stuck it in” anywhere, but both achieved climax by other means?</p>
<p>Consent seems to be a tough word…</p>
<p>Greenwitch posted this video. The lack of comments tells me not too many people watched it.</p>
<p>The video tries to show how people can help prevent some rapes.</p>
<p>Was the drunk woman in the video consenting?</p>
<p><a href=“kathartie: A powerful New Zealand anti-rape campaign....”>http://kathartie.■■■■■■■■■■/post/18543784513/a-powerful-new-zealand-anti-rape-campaign</a></p>
<p>JHS, well let me put it this way, if I was the one who got stuck in the butt, I would consider it rape. </p>