<p>When my kid was in 7th grade, the mother of one of his classmates, who we’ll call John, told me this story.</p>
<p>She was expecting a call from her older D to be picked up somewhere, so when she got home and found that a call from an unknown local number had come in she hit the auto callback button. The phone rings, and a giggling girl, with another giggling girl in the background, says “John, are you going to come over and have sex with us?” The astounded mother says, “Um, this is John’s mother.” The girl replies, without skipping a beat, “Oh, is John home?” No apparent embarrassment.</p>
<p>If the genders were reversed, a lot of people on this thread would be insisting that the caller(s) should be immediately reported to the school authorities and suspended or expelled or forced to adjust their schedules so that they would not come in contact with your daughter.</p>
<p>I totally believe that story after raising 3 boys to adulthood. Totally. I just posted something on the other thread in response to one of your posts about mediation. i won’t repeat the whole thing but mediation can solve some of these “cases.” Without it I fear the accusers end up feeling invalidated and the accused end up feeling betrayed. No one learns anything from that kind of situation except distrust of the opposite sex and the “system” and I find that very sad. </p>
<p>Truth me known, if I would have been your friend after the initial shock I probably would have said “No John can’t come over and have sex he’s fresh out of condoms” and then waited patiently for the response. After hanging up i would have been texting John (if he were mine) and give him the be careful lecture :-)</p>
<p>I also still think there is a fairly high percentage of parents who aren’t aware their kids are sexually active. I can tell you from experience that the tenor of the conversation definitely changes when you realize/find out you have sexually active kids. I must admit some sense of relief when that hurdle was passed and it was more out in the open. i think some cases where the accuser are paralyzed and would typically get counsel from a trusted source like a parent it’s because the parents don’t know they are sexually active. I remember my somewhat early feminist mother thought i was active years before I was but that was OK because I knew I could call her no matter what. And I know she worried plenty about me being assaulted in my college and early adulthood. I know it’s a difficult situation and I was raised by pretty liberated northern Europeans, but setting culture aside we have a moral obligation to be able to have these tough conversations about behavior and the reality of our current culture on most American college campuses. </p>
<p>I’m not sure where you got that. Nobody has even remotely suggested anything like that. Last time I checked, a phone call was not considered assault. All the cases (both hypothetical and real that we have been discussing have been at least assaults (if not rapes).</p>
<p>What’s the endgame when law students don’t want to learn about the potential cases they’ll be prosecuting/defending? A generation of lawyers that are too “triggered” to assess evidence?</p>
<p>“If the genders were reversed, a lot of people on this thread would be insisting that the caller(s) should be immediately reported to the school authorities and suspended or expelled or forced to adjust their schedules so that they would not come in contact with your daughter.”</p>
<p>Really @consolaiton that is totally ridiculous. I don’t know anyone, including myself, who would report something like that to authorities. I am not sure what point you are trying to make with assertions like that, but it seems you underestimate the intelligence of those around you.</p>
<p>@Jonri I lived in a NYC coop for ten years. I understand the power of the board. (My husband was actually on the board of the building we lived in.)</p>
<p>In the example you give a doorman who is suspected of molesting a child is compared to a college student suspected of sexually assaulting another student. You believe there are reasons that neither victim (or the family) nor the co-op or the administration should involve the police, but should handle the problem by firing the employee or expelling the student. My objection to that solution is that although the co-op or the college may have resolved their immediate problem, the perpetrator other than losing his job or his place at the college, goes unpunished. </p>
<p>Where the analogy differs, I think, is that a college student is not an employee. His rights and support groups are vastly different from that of a worker, union or otherwise. He is paying the college for his education and also has the right to due process when accused of a violent crime. </p>
<p>I have no problem firing anyone for any number of good reasons – a lot of them much less grave than sexual assault. Negotiating dismissals with unions is another issue altogether. I do have a problem with expelling students who are suspected but not convicted of violent sexual assault. Suspension while the case is investigated by the police and tried by the court is to me a better alternative along with other mechanisms like restraining orders to keep them off campus.</p>
<p>I appreciate that it’s difficult for rape victims to go to the police. There are thousands of police departments in America and I have no doubt that the level of competence in dealing with rape victims varies widely, from excellent to maliciously incompetent. </p>
<p>Although I feel that all rape victims, not just college students, deserve to be treated sensitively and fairly by law enforcement and the courts, let’s just stay on colleges for now. Surely the administration and victim advocate groups could work with the local police to assure that the facilities and trained personnel are available.</p>
<p>To make it clear, I’m fairly sure that the boy in question–a seventh grader, probably 12 years old–was not sexually active at that time. If the situation were reversed, I have no doubt that people here would assert that this was sexual harrassment. In fact, I wish I had presented it that way, to rack up the “Oh, how horrible, poor girl, she needed to be protected from those horrible boys” reactions.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the girl in the Occidental case consented. She not only consented, she actively pursued it. I think she knew that, until she spent much time being convinced otherwise by the admin looking for a scalp. I’m not saying she’s a liar, I’m saying she was manipulated by someone with a clear agenda.</p>
<p>And moreover, if he was drunk and she was actively pursuing him, how come HE was the only one guilty? I call that BS.</p>
<p>Slightly different, but do you remember the Steubenville case? Wasn’t there a young man who was a scholarship player at Ohio State who didn’t participate in the actual assault, but was either on a video or tweeted about it in real time? Didn’t OSU kick him out? And he wasn’t even “technically” an assailant, just a crude and tasteless bystander. They felt they had the right, even though it’s not against the law to be crude and tasteless. </p>
<p>He was in a lengthy video laughing and talking about her being raped. It really was quite appalling. At one point even one of the kids in the background remonstrated with him. I don’t know what, if anything, happened to the video-taper, who seemed to think he was just hilarious. :(</p>
<p>Did he accuse her? If he didn’t accuse her, how could she have been judged guilty? Only students who are accused of something can be found guilty of that thing.</p>
<p>What I read was that the evaluator didn’t determine whether he was incapacitated. </p>
<p>IMO, the Occidental case is a terrible example, unless you’re looking for an example of a hard case for a university to decide. People who are incapacitated can’t give consent. If you don’t get consent, it’s rape. The outside evaluator had to determine whether a sober reasonable person would say the girl was incapacitated, and the evaluator had, surprisingly, a lot of evidence to sift through. On the one hand, the girl was staggering and slurring her words. She was vomiting. On the other hand, the texts. I don’t see this as a slam dunk. I’d probably say she was not incapacitated, but I don’t see any abuse of discretion in deciding the other way in this difficult, close case. I have no problem with the standard, and not much issue with the way the standard was used.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To me, this policy is perfectly reasonable. Being drunk is not an excuse to commit crimes or infractions.</p>
<p>Worth repeating. This, from Harvard’s policy:</p>
<p>“In addition, when a person is so impaired or incapacitated as to be incapable of requesting or inviting the conduct, conduct of a sexual nature is deemed unwelcome, provided that the Respondent knew or reasonably should have known of the person’s impairment or incapacity. The person may be impaired or incapacitated as a result of drugs or alcohol or for some other reason, such as sleep or unconsciousness. A Respondent’s impairment at the time of the incident as a result of drugs or alcohol does not, however, diminish the Respondent’s responsibility for sexual or gender-based harassment under this Policy.”</p>
<p>Yeah, I know Harvard’s is under contention. So, here’s Oxy’s. No idea when it was adopted, but it may be the “refined definitions of coercion and incapacitation <a href=“August%202013”>from</a>”</p>
<p>"In general, sexual contact while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs poses a risk to all parties. Alcohol and drugs impair a person’s decision-making capacity, awareness of the consequences, and ability to make informed judgments. It is especially important, therefore, that anyone engaging in sexual activity be aware of the other person’s level of intoxication. If there is any doubt as to the level or extent of the other individual’s intoxication or impairment, the prudent course of action is to forgo or cease any sexual contact or activity. </p>
<p>Being intoxicated or impaired by drugs or alcohol is never an excuse for sexual harassment, sexual violence, stalking or intimate partner violence and does not diminish one’s responsibility to obtain consent."</p>
<p>Do you know that he couldn’t file a counter-claim? I don’t think you know that, nor do I think you know whether he would have been determined to be incapacitated if he had filed a claim.</p>
<p>I have no trouble with the unusual situation of both students being found at fault, if both made accusations and both accusations were found to have merit. Each person is responsible for what they do. But he did not accuse her and she did accuse him, so that’s what the college had to go on.</p>
<p>I do NOT believe that. Please do NOT put words in my mouth. </p>
<p>Nor did my example involve the board of a directors of a co-op. In fact, I don’t know what kind of co-op you lived in, but I doubt it was unionized. Boards don’t
at least in NYC. What a board can do is determined by what the collective bargaining agreement says and, as a practical matter, the board of an individual co-op has very little input into what the terms of that bargaining agreement will be. </p>
<p>
I guess you totally missed the examples I gave in which the alleged crimes were allegedly committed by another tenant. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think I’m obligated to follow rules you make up for what I can say or argue in this thread. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fine, that’s your opinion. You’re free to express it. I do disagree with that. Recognize, however, that most sexual assault investigations are over in a short amount of time and no charges are issued. They are NOT tried by the courts. </p>
<p>You totally ignore my primary point–that we do allow other organizations to take reasonable steps to protect the public or their customers against those who PROBABLY have committed wrongful acts even if they are not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>Well, a lot of these cases have some serious problems and these girls are being actively encouraged to report the slightest little offense and then people start calling it rape. I mean, look at the UVA story if you think this doesn’t get a little ridiculous. What a waste of time and effort. Oh my. </p>
<p>^ is that true, marie?<br>
Do you really believe one bad article sheds such amazing, perfect, what-took-you-so-long, final broad light on all these other situations, girls being encouraged to report the slightest offense and…everyone jumping to call it rape? </p>
<p>Do you remember the references to the actual regulations, guidance and explanations? The distinctions made, the terms used? Or?</p>
<p>@jonri, sorry, sorry, I didn’t intend to put words in your mouth or offend you. I merely meant to explain why I thought the cases were different, i.e., a employee who has allegedly committed a crime versus a student who has allegedly committed a crime. Yes, the employer can and should fire the employee. (I understood you to mean that the co-op had to negotiate with the union to get the employee fired. That would not be applicable in the student’s case.)</p>
<p>If there’s good reason to believe that an employee of a co-op has sexually molested a child living in the co-op I think the employee should be fired AND should be reported to the police.</p>
<p>If there’s good reason to believe that a student has sexually assaulted another student I think the student should be reported to the police and suspended while the investigation is on-going. Under Title IX the school must also conduct its own investigation, and if required proceed to “try and sentence” the student. That’s what I’m not in favor of.</p>