<p>momofthree: I do hope you realize I’m arguing for changing all of society. </p>
<p>“Marie! You stand by this? The sexual assault problem on campus is smaller than the sexual assault problem in the US. So, I guess what I’m saying is it’s not a campus problem??”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/11/politics/report-campus-sexual-assault/index.html”>Report: Non-student females face more sexual assault - CNNPolitics;
<p>I absolutely think rape is not a school problem and more importantly there is no school solution. I’m not sure what’s controversial about that, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does the prefix “oxy” come to mind for anyone reading that? It certainly does for me?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again, you make false claims. I said I would probably go back and find a post. I never said I couldn’t find one. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh really, I know there are cases where you either haven’t answered (although you are generally good about that), or where you obfuscated the issue with your answer. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh??? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sticks and stones. </p>
<p>
[quote=awc}If you need help understanding what I am asking for, how about a working example - you could simply follow your own advice about posting that you give other posters. Or does being picky about quoting posts only apply to others, but not to you?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, you miss the point. I was talking about making a comment and having no idea who it was directed to or what part of a poster’s comments it was referring to. You are comparing apples to oranges (as usual). When I say certain posters think “X” (Iike that the accused aren’t given a Due Process, or that rape statistics are overdone) I don’t need to use quotes. People who have been following the thread know what I am referring to. When someone says only “yup, I agree with that” the question is “agree with what”? Did they mean the post immediately before theirs or in a thread that has this many posts did they mean that only to have another poster get in-between them?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But much of what we have been talking about is applicable to the overall problem (e.g. No means No vs Yes means Yes).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the sue of the bolded word itself is not opinion/spin? 
</p>
<p>JC: Hello again.</p>
<p>LOL, well if society decides that change needs to be it will happen. If society decides they are Ok with the status quo things won’t change. Me, I think we can still improve the education of our police when handling and investigating sexual assault and there are some states that could improve on their current sexual assault laws. I don’t really have an opinion on colleges and universities other than they have no business investigating fealony charges. I can stomach them handling misdemeanor stuff and they have been all along to varying degrees of success. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Welcome to the conversation. However, it was pointed out earlier in the thread (multiple times by multiple posters referencing multiple studies) that the reported figures are too low. How much too low is open for debate but I think everyone here agrees that it isn’t even close to 1 in 3000. </p>
<p>A number of colleges are being investigated for improper Clery reporting, including understating.</p>
<p>@TV4caster - Thanks for your response (post 2643). </p>
<p>You prove my point nicely. You make a charge - I get that. I ask you for proof, using my own words, which you say exists - I get that too. </p>
<p>But now, instead of doing the right thing and backing up your charge with my posts you say exist, you spend time writing a lengthy post, never providing proof. OK, if that functions in your world as brilliant. Then so be it. </p>
<p>If you ever get around to finding those ghostly quotes that prove that I (and others) think the rights of the accuser are secondary to the rights of the accuse, then go ahead and post them. </p>
<p>Until then, the thousands of people reading CC and your charge, your response that you cannot back them up with real quotes from me, and your response in post #2643 can reach their own conclusion who is upfront and who is a walking smokescreen that makes charges he cannot back up when asked. </p>
<p>Thanks again for your response.</p>
<p>@johncristos I can’t argue with 1 in 600. It seems low to me but what do I know. Some serious studies/analysis have put it much higher. Even if we agree that it is 1 in 600 that, to me, means we still have a huge problem. That is 15 per year at UVA alone and 2000 per year at just our colleges. That isn’t a problem, that is an epidemic. </p>
<p>New handle, same old arguments. The BOJ numbers are still no good, still undercounts.</p>
<p>And about those Clery reports: the universities [significantly</a> underreport the numbers.](<a href=“Page Cannot be Found”>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2504631) By the greatest coincidence, the numbers reported during audit periods are 50% higher than the numbers before or after audit periods.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is a strawman argument.</p>
<p>But again, we need to understand the numbers. In Michigan 4th degree sexual conduct, the lowest degree, is considered a high court misdemeanor and in Michigan not all sexual contact with another person would be considered a crime. There has to be sexual contact plus something else. In the case of fourth degree, that “something else” includes things like: the presence of force or coercion, the accuser being under age 16 with the defendant being more than 5 years older than the accuser, or the defendant knows or should know that the victim is mentally or physically incapacitated. And every state has it’s own laws. I’ll believe a set of statistics if the terms are well defined, if the study is statistically relevant and the methodology is not flawed.</p>
<p>I’m not so sure that when people say the numbers are undercounted they aren’t including behavior that is simply not criminal. Misconduct would be a more accurate word. Now if that’s the case then it needs to be defined as such. Once definitions are in place I believe we can honestly say what makes sense for honor courts to adjudicate and what belongs to the criminal system. </p>
<p>CF, I don’t get your post 2633. I think you misread my post. I never said anything contrary to post 2633. I said the opposite of what you are implying.</p>
<p>I was reading it that if you were a woman, you’d probably be aware of even more rapes among your acquaintances. It might be another sort of under-reporting.</p>
<p>I have no idea though what CF meant or the reality of your real life experience. I have a male friend with whom I share anything I’d share with a female friends.</p>
<p>I would probably share with you IRL</p>
<p>Why yes, I do have a source that proves the BOJ numbers are undercounts. </p>
<p>The BOJ gets their numbers for sexual assaults the same way they get their numbers for other crimes like burglary: by interviewing a random sample of Americans in the National Crime Victims Survey (NCVS). The BOJ numbers for sexual assault are at least an order of magnitude lower than other reports, and have been criticized for being undercounts. The BOJ got the National Research Council to examine the discrepancy.</p>
<p>The National Research Council got together an enormous panel of experts, and wrote an entire book on [the wrongness of the BOJ numbers.](<a href=“Front Matter | Estimating the Incidence of Rape and Sexual Assault | The National Academies Press”>Front Matter | Estimating the Incidence of Rape and Sexual Assault | The National Academies Press) They concluded that the BOJ numbers were most likely undercounts. Moreover, they concluded that the NCVS was the wrong method for assessing the incidence of sexual assault crimes, and could not possibly yield good answers.</p>
<p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>With respect to (2), rape and sexual assault are crimes by definition, whether reported to the authorities or not. The BOJ numbers is supposed to be measuring the incidence of rape and sexual assault, not the number of rapes and assaults reported to police. But in the context of a survey about crime-- the respondents have just been asked about burglaries and beatings and so forth-- the panel says that people are likely not to bring up assaults that went unreported.</p>
<p>As to (3), the interviews were done at people’s homes, in earshot of their families. The panel concluded that some respondents wouldn’t want to talk about their rapes in front of their spouses or children.</p>
<p>As to (4), a valid survey design makes sure that people understand the questions. The panel said: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, for example, a respondent might acknowledge that someone had sexual intercourse with her against her will while she was passed out from alcohol, if you ask specifically about that particular scenario. That is rape. But she might not classify it as rape-- many people don’t. And so if you ask her whether she has been raped, she may say no. More accurate surveys ask more specific questions.</p>
<p>It’s important to add that although we know the BOJ numbers are wrong, that doesn’t mean that we know that other reported numbers are right. The BOJ numbers are a floor on the true number. We don’t know the ceiling or the true correct numbers.</p>
<p>Not really a strawman argument dstark. Rape is not limited to colleges and universities. it would be a strawman if the numbers were wildly different and I were misrepresenting the argument which is rape is pervasive and statistically overwhelming on colleges and campuses to the degree the we must, absolutely must do something about it. </p>
<p>@awcntdb Here is just the very first post you made on this thread (I haven’t even checked yet beyond the first one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This could be taken to mean that if you were the police you would have found inconsistencies and dropped the case. You have NO idea if Phi Psi is telling the truth that there was nobody who was a member and was a lifeguard. You have no idea if the Phi Psi party was an unofficial party. You have no idea if she confused Phi Psi and Tappa Kegga Day. If you were the police I believe from these statements alone that you would have said “oops. See. She is lying. We don’t need to investigate”, when in fact it could be a case of the guy actually being a swim coach etc. That is an example of just one of the inconsistencies that is possible (and basically irrelevant). </p>
<p>Let’s look for closely at
</p>
<p>That implies that it is your inclination to believe the accused and not the accuser. You can say you want equal protections but it is obvious your biases would not allow that. </p>
<p>I know you will say I am inferring too much but I will let people make their own decisions. Plus, again, this is just the very first post I checked out of hundreds. You say you “would take the accusers word at face value” but your verbiage surrounding your statements suggests otherwise. </p>