OOps- ML took care of the situation before my last posts and correction of the # of his posts (I thought 30 but re-read and corrected to 50!). Thanks, ML.
As HSD has been banned, I’ve cleaned up responses to his posts. Please no further posts directed toward him.
Darn. In a post a couple of pages ago, I was trying to carefully acknowledge two posts of @momrath, and now the post numbers are all screwed up. Anyway, thanks @momrath and others for carefully acknowledging the complexity of the situation. There’s not going to be a simple silver bullet for the problem of campus sexual assault.
(And why can’t CC just leave the posts with the same numbers when some posts are deleted? Grr.)
tbf: that is true at pretty much every (top) private college. The numbers don’t look so stark at HYS because they changed the definition of need to incomes up to $180k, so those full-payors are not so noticeable in the statistics.
In NH, it is illegal for underaged – to be drunk. Period.
^^what I mean is that, NH, unlike some/many states, will cite/prosecute the underaged, i.e., most college undergrads, from having alcohol in their system.
45 sates do allow underage drinking in some circumstances. NH sits with Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, and West Virginia in allowing no exceptions.
Going back to the actual forum topic:
The article tells what the Phi Psi members went through. Death threats. Living cramped in a hotel room. Being afraid of bricks being thrown through windows.
The article states that the vandalism of the house is still under police investigation. It also states that the chapter is still considering legal action.
One of the comments states that “Jackie” has left the university.
This is a blanket statement that does not necessarily reflect reality. My kid was on virtually a full ride at D. He did not feel “left out,” although there were occasions when his/our lack of income was an issue. FA at Dartmouth also supports fraternity/sorority membership and study abroad. if “almost” 60% of kids come from families with incomes above $200K, that means that over 40% do not. This is hardly a tiny, put upon minority.
This is the part that I thought interesting about the statement.
My initial reaction was why there are kids who feel the need or desire to have other people’s lives and stuff? And then when they cannot just have it, then they say they feel left out? How about live your life, just like the other people are living their’s?
Simply because you are in the same place for a certain amount of time, does not mean you are the same, and more importantly, that you are expected to the the same. Welcome life - not everyone is the same. Best learn to be comfortable with what you have and if you do not like, then do what you need to change. However, kids really should not be learning to expect to automatically be part of or included in other’s lives.
It was mentioned a couple pages back about the dropping the drinking age back to 18. I just wanted to put in the mix that my reasoning had nothing to do with the current drinking culture and the like. My position is a more fundamental, and not reactionary to current day.
I basically reject the notion that at 18 one can vote, fight and die for one’s country, own a firearm, can legally start a business, buy cigarettes, fly an airplane with passengers as the lone pilot, yet, it was decided that one cannot legally have a drink and coerced by linking it to government money. Just plain illogical in my book.
All it did was the same a prohibition, which was drive it underground and, the the case of many adults, put it in the “There is nothing to see here column” and ignore underage drinking, making tons of people law breakers in many respects. Does not sit well as a good civics lesson for kids.
The minority of students I was referring to were students from families of low to moderate income, which I would define as less than $100K/year. That’s a smaller minority, less than a quarter of Dartmouth students. I didn’t mean to imply that every such student felt put up, but according to the report I linked, enough do that it is a concern the university wishes to address. I don’t see setting up residential colleges as taking anything away from any Dartmouth students. It sounds like a good idea to me.
“My initial reaction was why there are kids who feel the need or desire to have other people’s lives and stuff?”
Because they’re human? I mean, I’m a grownup, not an 18-year-old, and sometimes I wish I had other people’s lives and stuff. (Wedding planning is an especially tempting time to wish I had an unlimited budget and a personal friendship with dress designer Jenny Packham.)
One doesn’t have to be envious to want more inclusiveness.
Thanks for the olive branch, @cardinalfang. 
I’ve learned a lot from this thread. I’m fairly well informed on colleges and the workings of the U.S. government, but before Jackie I didn’t know beans about the DE OCR and Title IX. My son went to two colleges known for heavy drinking and jock culture – though thankfully he was involved in neither and oddly enough neither school has shown up on the OCR’s investigation list – but I had no idea that the OCR’s mandates were so invasive.
A disclaimer that will surprise no one: I am not a fan of big government. I think the DE OCR, though well meaning, has way overstepped its legal boundary and its feasibility boundary, and that it has in effect bitten off so much more than it can chew that the resulting indigestion will be an unfortunate backlash against sexual assault advocacy.
This might be surprising: I am a longtime and serious feminist, and I want men who sexually assault women to be punished severely. I want the culture to change. I have also worked in a male dominated industry for 40+ years and have come to accept pragmatism over idealism. My advice to the young women who are leading the advocacy charge is pick your battles, don’t succumb to hyperbole and learn how to negotiate with the “enemy”.
Lastly some anecdotal evidence on drinking: The country that I live in has no practical drinking age limit. Most of the local population doesn’t drink for religious or cultural reasons, but young expatriates have unfettered access to alcohol. My observation is that despite the availability of alcohol, these kids have a very low instance of problem drinking in high school, in college and as young adults, perhaps because the mystique was nullified. The big however, however, is that in my host country young expatriates seldom drive, so that part of the equation is not applicable.
Gotta say I disagree here strongly. Due process rights are civil rights. How much more hostile could an environment be than one that unfairly accuses a student of a felony?
By “interim solutions” I meant that I would support suspension (not expulsion) for a person indicted for sexual assault. This would serve the purpose of removing him from campus. He could be expelled (or not) after the verdict were received. In some cases he may even be expelled even if he weren’t found guilty. Colleges are going to make some mistakes along the way, but at least they’ll be thought out mistakes.
Hard for me to answer impartially as I was skeptical of the Duke Lacrosse accuser from Day One, having lived in New York during the Tawana Brawley debacle. If I were able to put myself in the mindset of the Duke administrators when the 2 students were indicted, then I would have suspended or even expelled them. If the real me were an administrator then I would have held my fire until more information emerged.
PS, I was interested in watching the progress of the Duke McLeod trial which was scheduled to begin this month, but unfortunately for McLeod Duke has be granted a delay which may be up to a year’s time.
PPS, @TatinG, thanks for the Cavalier article. I was wondering what became of Jackie too.
@hanna - I definitely understand your post, but my point was really the second part. I agree it is natural to see someone with something you like and wish you had it. However, it is an entirely different thing to think you are left out of something that you could not afford in the first place. It is that part of the mindset I do not get. As I tell my kids, “Enjoy your life, not someone else’s. And do what you love, not what someone else loves.” I do get your point though.
@awcntdb, I agree that this is an ideal we should encourage our kids to aspire to. But if all my friends from the dorm are spending spring break skiing in Switzerland together, and I can’t afford to go on the trip, I’m going to feel left out, because I AM left out. That’s just the reality. If you’re at a high enough emotional level to let it roll off your back, great, but I won’t judge any kids who haven’t reached that point.
Where did everyone disappear to? Usually when I wake up here in Asia there are 50-70 posts on this thread. I feel like I’ve shown up at a party on the wrong day. 
I think they all went to the Emma Sulkowicz thread.
Response re: an alleged sexual assault at UVa on January 30 th http://wtvr.com/2015/02/05/sexual-assault-reported-at-uva-6-days-after-alleged-incident/
Reviving this to post the latest:
"Police Chief Timothy J. Longo on Monday afternoon said the police department had multiple meetings with “Jackie” — the woman who claimed she was gang raped at a fraternity party — and that she declined to speak about the alleged incident or provide any information about it. Numerous lines of inquiry yielded evidence that the fraternity did not have a party the night of the alleged attack, and police were unable to find anyone matching the description of the alleged attacker.
“We’re not able to conclude to any substantive degree that an incident occurred at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house or any other fraternity house, for that matter,” Longo said at a news conference. “That doesn’t mean something terrible didn’t happen to Jackie … we’re just not able to gather sufficient facts to determine what that is.”"
I read the police interviewed over 70 people including the author of the RS piece. Jackie herself refused to give a statement regarding either the rape or the bottle throwing incident (parts of which her roommate has disputed, like picking glass from Jackie’s scalp).
Why do you think she did not speak to the police? Many are inferring it is because lying to the police (ie sticking to her story as told in RS) is a potentially criminal act. But if something else really did happen to her, why not clear it up now and give the authorities some real leads and some real evidence to go on? The chief seems to be saying he can’t do anything more without “someone” coming forward, and the most important someone is Jackie.
On another note, the investigation by Columbia into the RS article is almost complete and should be released in the next 2 weeks.