<p>Marie (or some other knowledgable parent), on a completely unrelated topic, can you please tell me why young women in their 20’s believe that if they are dumped, they have the right to 1) summon their ex, 2) have him sit down without moving for hours, 3) have him listen to all the injustices that he has committed, 4) have him concede that dumping this fine specimen of the female species is the worst thing he could ever do in his life, and 5) have him apologize for it all, just so that the woman can get to closure? Where does this entitlement come from? And why is anyone who refuses to subject himself to this nonsensical abuse is automatically labelled an a-hole?</p>
<p>OK, don’t tell me. That would sidetrack this discussion. </p>
<p>I have one son , two daughter and a wife. If any of us are on the perp or victim side of a sex assault in our lives, we rely on the cops for better or worse. Except for four year when we are subject to a special federal mandate and system as an addition. That four years does not correlate with higher risk </p>
<p>That makes sense, because the Feds funded my student loan. Ok. Now it makes sense to me. Duh. Not sure why I had such a hard time getting that. So straight forward. </p>
<p>True or false: if you believe an employee is stealing, you can fire him. You can also report him to the police, but there is no requirement. And you do not have to wait for the results of a criminal prosecution to dump him. ?</p>
<p>2560 what young women in their 20’s believe that? And if you can cite one or two, does that mean colleges should ignore accusations of rape or sexual assault</p>
<p>The difference is a company is paying you for your work product but college kids and their parents are paying the colleges. Completely different situation. If you 'fire my kid" from a college you better be prepared to pay for whatever is already into it it the situation even smells slightly unjustified or the process is not clean as a whistle as far as rights go. I can “fire” the college by pulling my kid out, but the college better darn well justify why my kid should walk away from how ever many credits are under the belt at that point. That’s why boys are fighting back - they can’t get into another college and they are walking away sometimes with 3 years of credits under their belt and can’t finish their degrees, not wanting to “be around” somebody but not wanting to press charges and cause “harm” to the guy on a campus of potentially 42,000 is a weak argument in the absence of any evidence that someone is potentially causing gross harm to all the other 20,000 women - that’s what part of the tens of millions are going toward - damages and that’s why colleges are reluctant to “expel” perhaps they don’t think the guy is gross harm to all the other women on campus. Perhaps the kid has had no prior trouble, is doing academically well, participates on campus, nothing there except one person’s accusation. There has to be a process. It has to not infringe on everyone’s right to due process. The punishment cannot reasonably exceed the harm. </p>
<p>You think that’s the difference, mom3? The one accused of stealing (a crime,) doesn’t need due process, the police don’t need to be brought in and the employer doesn’t have to wait for a court decision? Even though his livelihood is jeopardized? </p>
<p>Btw, I am surprised so many people characterize T9 in ways that suggest they may not have read it. Eg, the accused is allowed to consult an attorney.</p>
<p>So, more or less, people seem to line up like this: </p>
<p>On one side, it’s a witch hunt (surprised you haven’t claimed it’s a plot to emasculate men and dis-empower them in our society- probably originating in radical lesbianism.) Inadequate ad hoc “tribunals” are supplanting the justice system to railroad young men and regulate sex, eliminate it from campuses (and expel those gentle guys.) And, btw there really is no problem because some stats are wrong, but “our” stats are right. There is no problem (or the problem is much bigger off campus,) so what the freak are you blowing this up for? And anyway, women tend to raise the accusations of sexual assault for retribution, snicker. And the proof: we’ve got X lawsuits brought by men who wish to defend themselves further. Therefore, the whole thing is screwed. We’re telling you and you won’t listen. Not to mention bare breasts and strap-ons. And I’ve watched or seen or come up with an anecdote or spoken to counsel, so, [to adapt the phrase,] I’m OK, you’re all wrong.</p>
<p>On the other side, folks who say, damn, unwanted sex happens, the threat exists, the college has a particular responsibility to not simply shuffle it off campus, but recognize it as something affecting their community and by gummy we’ve got T9 which mandates we explore when there is a complaint lodged. Even if it’s a smaller number than some think, even if it is gray, it needs to be taken seriously. We’re not ignorant to the confusion, but we respect the goal to tackle this. And so on. And if some colleges have F’ed it up, they should be investigated. Not assume all colleges do and will or that there is no unwanted sex occurring. Etc</p>
<p>Then there are some who suggest registering, videotaping (what’s next?) </p>
<p>Unfortunately many of these cases aren’t rape and tilt much stronger toward accusations of misconduct. Very few colleges expel for misconduct unless the misconduct is irreparable or has occurred multiple times. I think it’s very important to parse these terms. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in Title IX that says colleges and unis must expel. It’s being extrapolated that this should or is the only outcome available to colleges and universities through the use of the word “rape” for everything. </p>
<p>And absolutely women who are going to talk to the Title IX officer and press conduct charges need to be advised of what they can and can’t do legally just as they would if they choose to press charges.It’s very serious situation and not something anyone should take lightly. </p>
<p>Yes, and on conclusion, many are characterized as misconduct, many result in directions to pursue counseling re: alcohol, many end in probation, some are even dismissed. </p>
<p>There is nothing in T9 that dictates any punishment, expulsion or other. Just that proper attention be given to the complaint and process used, that the rights of both parties are respected during the process (clearly there are fails in that respect,) and more. It doesn’t use “rape” as exclusively as some on this thread have. Rape or alleged rape is one item on a list, not the main word (recently) used on this thread.</p>
<p>That is my understanding also. It’s a slippery slope - on surface i think anyone convicted of a felony crime on surface would give a college or uni cause to expel, but I also believe in redemption so in some cases suspension might make sense. Many cases might be remedial - loosing credit and gaining an F for a first charge of unintentional plagiarism or some such equivalent thing, counseling might be in line for two kids that get in a fist fight or two students that are embroiled in controversy with each other than impacts no one else, mediation might be another option if both parties can get to that point. </p>
<p>I’m sorry for being off-topic but am just catching up and needed to respond to this:</p>
<h1>2462 sowhat:</h1>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just to clarify, you don’t have to care deeply about your partner to practice “continuous” affirmative consent. This works perfectly well when two people just want to have a good time and never see each other again. I was giving my examples for affirmative consent that would be appropriate in a hook-up situation. If you are having sex with someone for the first time, you need to ask them what they like & what they want to do because you don’t know. You can tell them what you like and ask if that is on offer. I tried to give suggestions as to how to do this without killing the mood. Especially when partners and young and inexperienced - they need to be talking about what they are doing so they can get it right. If you are trying something for the first time, you may decide you really don’t like that after all and want to stop. If you can show without telling, that is okay with me, but that usually requires skills that come with practice and may be unrealistic for those in their teens and early 20s. And since people don’t all like the same thing… you need to be communicating. I would hope that both parties to a hook-up leave mutually satisfied. </p>
<p>I am absolutely fine with sex just for the sex. But I think each participant needs to be doing his/her best to see the other gets what he/she wants out of the experience. You treat the other person how you wish to be treated. This is where the golden rule comes in.</p>
<p>It is interesting that the conservative, it is the woman’s problem approach only seems to come from men, and women with no daughters.</p>
<p>I don’t see a single poster of either sex who has daughters of college age and thinks that if they get raped, it is their fault and responsibility, and they just need to deal with it.</p>
<p>Okay, I have read most of this thread and no-one including Sowhat ever said any of those things. There is a lot of grey area here that people insist on calling rape and it’s causing misunderstanding on this thread and in real life. Unless I missed a post or two somewhere rape victims should just deal with it or it’s their fault simply hasn’t been suggested anywhere by anyone. I do get that people seem to read it somehow though.</p>
<p>Maybe, it’s the preventing part that people are interpreting as blaming. These can and should co-exist.</p>
<p>I must say this thread has become addicting. I’m on the other side of the world from most of you, and by the time wake up, some 200+ comments have been added, not to mention the various attachments. Good thing I don’t have a job.</p>
<p>The more I read about Title IX, the more I’m convinced that the Department of Education should not be adjudicating rape or other sexual assault cases!</p>
<p>I don’t see anything there about the accused’s right to have an attorney, but maybe the rules regarding legal representation are up to the individual school?</p>
<p>As a case in point, the article about his ordeal at Yale, Patrick Witt claims that he was not allowed to have a lawyer present. A faculty advisor, yes. Lawyer, no. To me, this directly contravenes our legal rights. Patrick Witt’s case was dropped before it became a formal complaint, but his life was severely and negatively impacted. Kafka would have been impressed.</p>
<p>Here’s another Yale case. In this one the respondent was not “found guilty” or whatever. (No lawyers here either) This statement from the complainant took my breath away: </p>
<p>“Their world” is truly not the the same as the rest of the world’s world.</p>
<p>The UMich case of Drew Sterrett is even more bizarre. Sterrett was advised of the accusation in a Skype call from the college’s Office of Student Conflict Resolution.</p>
<p>No way is this due process! I suppose I could find an equal number of examples in which courts of law mangled victims’ rights, but this is not a contest. Why have two imperfect channels?</p>
<p>Now, back to Jackie, a question: I favor the separation of sexual misconduct from sexual assault, which, to me, would involve violence. I would put "forced kissing, fondling, and rubbing up against you in a sexual way, even if it is over your clothes.” and the like in the first category. I would put rape, as defined as penetration, in the second. Let the schools handle sexual misconduct. Let the police and courts handle sexual assault.</p>
<p>My question is where would you put forced oral sex (Jackie’s claim)? In my book this would be a violent crime, but how it was forced would be the determining factor. If there was a threat of physical harm – brute strength, weapons – then it is a violent crime. If it were coercion, peer pressure, I’m not so sure. If the victim participated willingly (and gave consent) but s/he was drunk at the time? I have no idea. </p>
<p>Lastly, my internet search about Title IX led me to this NYT article from November 15, by a Yale Law professor. I read it at the time, but it didn’t resonate the way it does now. Lot’s of interesting stuff in the article. My major take away:
<p>LF – sure T9 doesn’t prohibit accused from having lawyers. Not the point. Do schools inform accused that they have the right to a lawyer? And that one will be provided to them if (as an impecunious college student) they can’t afford one?</p>
<p>If they don’t do that, then I call Bravo Sierrra and bogus kangaroo court.</p>
<p>Of course, if kangaroo courts just deal with misconduct (and not rape), and only deal with lower punishments (and not expulsion) then all this lawyering up and due process isn’t going to be necessary. </p>
<p>Seems like a reasonable way to go. Which is what schools were doing before the Feds stuck their nose in. </p>
<p>Rape should mean crime, cops, jail and expulsion. Colleges handle misconduct, suspensions, counseling etc. just fine and don’t have to due process/lawyer up to a ridiculous degree to do that.</p>