Yes, as long as striking the guy doesn’t endanger them (and in the case of acquaintance rape I don’t think it does). Either it stops the rape or gives us pretty good evidence. Either way, better than what seems to be going on now.
That was the whole point of the plane story. But you need to believe that there are far fewer “no” cases among the cases that are brought (or go unreported) than occur among all sexual encounters.
momrath - it is true that the committee ruled that she didn’t consent because she was incapacitated (or maybe just intoxicated since exactly what standard the committee used is also disputed). However, it is not undisputed that she consented to sexual intercourse. It is only undisputed by the victim that she consented (valid or not) to everything up to that point. But if you’re saying the committee ruled that she had consented despite her denial, I agree that the finding of incapacitation makes the point moot.
It does not sound far fetched to me that this young woman wanted to play around and did not want to have sexual intercourse. I think there are movies and books about this subject.
al2simon, I was responding to Pizzagirl, who said we can’t train the guys to ask before proceeding, because they’re bad people. But if they’re bad people, they will also not stop when the woman say No. Either some of the guys currently being accused are good, well-meaning men who are making mistakes, in which case we ought to be able to train them not to make mistakes by asking first, or all of the guys currently being accused are bad people, in which case there’s no point in training women to say No to them because they are bad people who won’t listen to No.
So I say, train the guys to ask. And train the women to break their noses if they don’t ask and their advances are unwelcome-- pour encourager les autres.
No company in its right mind would put something like that in print simply because across X number of employees there are enough “just unstable enough” people of which you are not aware and people who become unstable due to problems at home or in their personal life or other who would take advantage of the policy to just get the time off with pay. And because they are clouded (maybe blinded is a better word) by other pressures, they would not even think of the ramifications until it is too late or maybe never until the shoe drops on them. No different than people who fake X for workers comp and disability. It is not the normal people who matters in such situations; it is the abnormal people that you do not see, but know that they exist.
The only things I am pretty sure that is in print re time off with pay are: 1) the 5-year sabbatical for executives, 2) maternity leave, and 3) extended sick leave with pay for treatment. Anything else is done on an “as determined” basis. There might be couple other things in some divisions of which I am not aware, but they would be division-specific and things that the presidents of those divisions have deduced are necessary, but which are also difficult to take advantage of unless really needed.
It’s important to note that these are not cases wherein the police claim “not enough evidence,” “accuser lacks credibility” or some such reason for not taking up the case as requested by the accuser. No, the point of this article is that when the police ASK the accuser if she’s sure she wants to proceed with a legal case and she demurs, they are bullying (or at least pressuring) her not to go forward. The article supports the opinion that every claim should be investigated, even if the accuser doesn’t want to take part in the investigation.
I have to say this makes no sense to me. I wouldn’t use the Tallahassee PD as a model for sexual assault investigation, but how can any police department effectively investigate a crime without the involvement of the alleged victim? This is doubly problematic in he said/she said situations in which the question is not whether sex happened but rather whether it was consensual or if the victim was intoxicated.
The Huffington Post article posted by bearpanther explores this contradiction further: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/25/states-campus-rape-police_n_6535074.html
Many colleges are realizing their limitations in adjudicating felony sexual assault and want more and earlier police involvement. Several State governors and legislatures are discussing how to improve police response, which is, to me, a good thing.
Victim advocacy groups say automatic police involvement puts too much burden on the victims.
Women can’t have it both ways. They can’t make serious accusations of serious prison-worthy crimes but expect not to be involved in the legal process, no matter how lengthy or arduous. They can’t expect their alleged assaulters to be punished by the legal system, but be unwilling to get involved themselves in the investigation and prosecution. They can’t expect the colleges to punish their alleged assaulters by the slap on the wrist (e.g., moved out of their chemistry class) when they’re making accusations of felony rape. Talk about mixed messages!
I get that victims of violent assault – sexual or otherwise – are emotionally fragile and that it’s not easy to come forward with an accusation, especially if the perpetrator is a popular campus figure, but Geez! there is just too much over-compensation going on here.
I think the OSR’s Title IX un-thought-through mandates – which they have doubled down on through ongoing investigations and threats to remove funding – have put both the colleges and the local police departments in an untenable situation, and that the inevitable legal backlash won’t do rape victims any good. I’m glad to hear that colleges and States are working together to unravel this unfortunate tangle.
Aren’t we talking about women who have already been to the hospital for a loooong rape examination, then been interviewed by police? The cops have plenty to investigate and plenty to work on before the woman needs to decide whether she’s willing to go to trial.
In too many jurisdictions the police do not want to investigate rape, or not every rape, or they bury them to make their numbers look better compared to the previous year.
I’m sure there has historically been the same lack of attention to hate crimes against POC and against the gay and lesbian population. Hopefully with proper attention to these issues and better training, things will get better.
The victim advocacy groups are advocating for an alternate system for college woman unless it is a horrific and obvious criminal assault in which case they seem to be okay with involving the cops. The aim is actually pretty transparent but not too many people pay close attention to these things and most are easily distracted, unfortunately.
This is another example of how posters say things about other posters than is just a gross misrepresentation of a specific position. People seem to have a problem understanding context and specificity with the extreme being the only thing what they deduce or take away.
I have never said that men and women are the same. Never.
What I have said is that people cannot claim and espouse equality out of one side of their mouths and then want differential standards of behavior and expectations when it comes to policy issues and standards. Either you are equal or you are not reference behavior codes or, say in case of a company, expected work skills and requirements.
And this is where a lot of this discussion is falling on deaf years with people viewing it from the outside, as the dichotomy does come of as duplicitous. It is the equivalent of saying “We are all equal until I do not like the outcome of the equal treatment.”
I will say it one more time - in a case of two voluntarily drinking coeds, if the standard is that the male should be able to keep his wits about him at all times to determine if a female can consent, then true equality dictates that a female is also held to a standard that she must be able to keep her wits about her at all times too to determine if the male is capable of consent or capable of determining if she can give consent. That is equality of behavior, equality of an expected standard, and the promotion of a policy that is gender neutral.
Bottom line is I never have indicated, implied, or said that the interaction between men and women is the same or that they (men and women) are the same in general. That would be worse than thinking like a 1st grader. Even little kids know that men and women communicate differently.
The simplicity of it all is that communication and general interaction differences between the sexes are not the same as promoting differential gender expectations for the same exact action / behavior and then codifying that difference into policy. The former is natural and expected, while the latter is purely politically fabricated.
That’s the wrong question. The police don’t understand how the brain functions when there is a sexual assault. Because the police don’t understand how the brain functions during and after a sexual assault, the police does a poor job of investigating secual assaults and pursuing sexual assalt cases.
When the police ask the accuser if she wants to proceed, the police already screwed up. The police should gather information and leave the victim alone so she can recover.
You don’t ask somebody with a broken knee cap to run. Sexual assault causes brain injury and the brain needs time to recover.
I have a really nice link somewhere that addresses this issue. I am not going to find it with all these posts in this thread.
More importantly though, the police are not going to do a good job until THEY figure this out.
Again, please read my post. I did not say it is an actual policy that is codified in stone. I said that that is what I would do / instruct if the situation came up.
In short, I thought about it and determined the above would be my solution if that situation ever arose.
I get 10 to 15 different situations every single day that are not covered by any policy except the general policy statement of whom should determine the course of action.
There is no way to have the majority of situations that happen in a company on a daily basis covered by a specific policy simply because there is no way to predict what the future holds in terms of a situation.
I love your phrasing and construction above. Classic example of advocacy thinking.
Instead of asking the first question and awaiting my answer, you assume the answer and ask me if I wouldn’t be concerned. This is not that even having a discussion at that point; it pure assumption to the hilt.
All I need to answer is your first question, and if you asked that and waited you would have known immediately your two other questions make no sense.
Anyone who admits a crime to the firm is gone. Been there, done that.
And please note, in the initial example, the person did not admit anything, he was just accused and the police brought in. dstark changed the scenario, as usual with this crowd.
As I said before, we do not dismiss on accusations alone. However, we do dismiss on admittance of a crime alone. These are not the same things, and dstark’s second example is not what was initially being discussed.
That was not directed at you personally, and I was not thinking about you when I wrote that sentence.
It was directed at groups and other entities, which in general promote differential policies for the same action based on gender and then say said differential represents equality. Just plain illogical.
And I do believe such unequal policies are politically motivated, as no one would naturally even think of that as equal. There must be a driving force, and I do think a lot of the driving force is politics of the day.
I haven’t seen anyone in the thread disagree with this. Can you provide a reference to cases where a male student has accused a woman of assaulting him while he was incapacitated, and his case has not been taken up, while at the same institution men who allegedly assaulted equally drunk women were disciplined? If you can’t, then you have no basis for saying this particular rule is being enforced unequally.
At any rate, I’m not sure how any office examples shed much light on the expectations of a college in dealing with kids who don’t usually have even a toe dipped into the outside world.
Even if we had a college president, provost or student life rep- or college general counsel- speaking here, I’d listen and try to learn his or her perspective- but still know that was only one example. So far, imo, the only thing close to that that we have is the Brown Interim Report, which speaks for that college.
In an ideal world, we wouldn’t have these issues, everyone would be respectful, relationships would take their time to develop, very few would be getting drunk, few would find themselves at risk, even if sober. Well, college isn’t an ideal world. Is there a huge risk that young women and men take, when they pay with fire? Yes. Does that mean the colleges should turn a blind eye, whether or not the police are involved? I don’t think so.
All along, I kept looking at some of the legal context. Eg, many here want universal due process. How do I reconcile that posters want due process when first, it applies to state actions (not private) and second, even the Supreme Court has been reluctant to apply it to all manner of cases or defenses?
Likewise, I dispute comments that colleges are just out to get conviction numbers higher or that that’s the secret, hidden agenda behind Title IX. The words aren’t there, not in the law, not in the Letters, and not in anything verbal I’ve seen. But I do agree some colleges have mishandled some cases and they should be held responsible (to the correct degree for their own particular mishandling.)
The is a very nice summary form the New England Journal of High Education that clearly illustrates some of the past issues and some of interpretations of Title IX including the inconsistency between Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act and interpretations of Title IX regarding advisers/lawyers etc. for both claimant and accused. I do believe that progress is being made in clarifying what exactly colleges are responsible to do and how they might go about it. There are also quite a few very good articles linked including on on the increasing incidence of college students arriving on campus with emotional issues and discussion of the emotional intelligence of our young adults. This is something I’m pretty keyed on - too many of the complaints are situations that could have clearly been avoided but fortunately we don’t spend much time discussing because for the most part it appears on surface that EQ is something that colleges can handle, as long as the have the financial pockets to provide counseling resources, etc. for both parties to a complaint.
