<p>I suppose that means that private universities could reverse the burden of proof in sexual assault cases then if they want. I imagine it might impact their male enrollment figures, but maybe not.</p>
<p>"
Perhaps colleges need to become more difficult. I’ve read that long essays and papers are no longer usual at some colleges. Assign more reading. Grade on a true curve. No more easy A classes. No more grade inflation.</p>
<p>That will keep the students in the libraries rather than at the parties."</p>
<p>I think this has nothing to do with anything, as bad-frat-boy-behavior (and I’m not laying it all on frat boys, just using that as an example) has occurred at very elite schools. Gee, Princeton’s hard, and look at that Tiger Inn. </p>
<p>Re: DEfour’s post #1635</p>
<p>Not sure we can put the sex genie back in the bottle, but I do agree with many of your suggestions regarding drinking.</p>
<p>I’d love to see:</p>
<ul>
<li>Drinking age lowered to 18 for beer and wine</li>
<li>Drinking licenses that can be suspended or withdrawn for those under 21. Licenses would require education on alcohol and potential deleterious effects from drinking (health, sexual assault, driving dangers, etc.)</li>
<li>On campus fraternities required to hire a bartender who serves all drinks except beer which must be distributed in cans or bottles (minimize drinks of unknown origin, with unknown drugs, and of unknown strength). Bartender must be trained/licensed/preferably over 25 and can refuse to serve</li>
<li>On campus fraternities required to provide sober brothers and/or hire security trained to act as “bystanders” and keep an eye out for potential victims</li>
<li>Off campus fraternities asked to abide by the same regulations as on campus fraternities voluntarily (I assume there is less jurisdiction for these?)</li>
<li>College sanctioned events with aforementioned bartenders and security </li>
<li>Fraternities should be encouraged to serve food at all events (college can do this with matching funds or some other kind of incentive) as food definitely slows the effects of alcohol.</li>
</ul>
<p>I do agree that drinking can lead to problematic sexual behavior and assault. Young adults are often drinking (too much) because they want to feel more comfortable socially. I am only a case study of one, but I definitely drank by far the most between the ages of 16 and 20 (and it was a LOT), and I drink extremely rarely now. The strongest mating drive is present and alcohol makes that seem easier. So the drinking won’t stop despite our prohibitions. But some more structure around the drinking and giving young adults a chance to drink when their parents are still around them to impose some discipline seem like a better idea than what is going on now.</p>
<p>‘Elite’ school does not necessarily equate with difficult academically. Some elite schools have a terrible reputation when it comes to grade inflation. Most students get A’s and B’s. </p>
<p>I thought we were clear on the burden of proof that colleges have for sexual assault cases: the victim has to prove she was assaulted, by a preponderance of the evidence. That’s federal law.</p>
<p>When Zerlina Maxwell, whoever she is, says, “We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says,” I’m not even sure what that is supposed to mean. Who’s we? We the police? We the public? We in her support group?</p>
<p>We the public should maintain skepticism in the face of allegations, waiting for more information to emerge.* We* the police should question the accuser as if she is telling the truth, as a matter of tactics, in order to get the most accurate information. Wein her support group should support her in her healing. And we the editorial writers should stop writing dumb editorials that imply that our choice is between thinking she was raped and thinking he was a rapist-- those are both the same choice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, but I was posting in response to JHS’s post (and others about Maxwell, et al) that raised the prospect of using the “guilty until proven innocent” standard for sexual assaults in college. But now that you mention it, federal law may have preempted that area in the manner you have stated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but that’s not Princeton, not in terms of work load, and not in terms of grades.</p>
<p>20-year-old college students have been drinking to excess and hooking up pretty much since colleges came into being. You can read it in the Carmina Burana, in Rabelais, in E.T.A. Hoffmann, in Flaubert, in Waugh, in Mary McCarthy and Vargas Llosa. Mishima, Murakami, Dai Si-je.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Small nit: actually, it’s federal regulation. </p>
<p>Federal regulation that has the force of law, right? </p>
<p>Why would it affect male enrollment if you believe men can make sound decisions and keep it buttoned in? Don’t you see how the defenses about the guys serve to make them seem weak and powerless? Your sons, your friends? If you like young men and believe in them, you can expect them to exercise proper judgment. Not keep posing this as some instinct that drives them to be opportunists. And we already know some of the tougher colleges also have this problem. Quit looking for excuses.</p>
<p>Yes, it starts at home, with their upbringing. Wrong (or no) message at home and it doesn’t matter if the school has rules to limit drinking. All this chat about the guy who has apparent, legit consensual sex being later accused, just heightens the distance from facing what non-consensual sex is.</p>
<p>Preponderance of evidence works both ways. A guy can get off because her story doesn’t hold enough water. Or the apparent facts can start to line up. </p>
<p><a href=“Princeton Grade Deflation Reversal Disappoints Some Here | News | The Harvard Crimson”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/10/9/princeton-grade-deflation-reversal/</a></p>
<p>Princeton terminated their tougher (no more than 35% As) grading policy in October.</p>
<p>“College culture” should be changed? Seriously? Do we agree that rapists, on a college campus or not, a college student at the time of the rape or not, are criminals? And do we agree that criminals do prey on vulnerable people in vulnerable situations, if they can?</p>
<p>And do we agree that the combination of an individual’s fear to report and the administration’s fear to publicize complicated this particular story? And that those need to be addressed, because we can NEVER be crime-free?</p>
<p>And lookingforward, you do realize men are raped too? And that the extra stigma can make it even worse? There was a case at Rutgers where a guy was raped by his roommate, who attacked him while he was sleeping. The case was reported and did go to trial, and the perp was convicted. I do not think sex is more intimate to females than males, it depends on the person; I do think some people treat it differently, and different cultures around the world treat it differently. </p>
<p>I believe that it is more likely that if the girl in question was punched in the face and her nose broken, she would have gone to the cops. If someone is murdered on campus, does the administration handle it or do the police handle it? If someone steals a thousand dollars from game day receipts, does the university investigate or do they call the police? Do you call the Dean if your car is stolen? My friend was hit by a car on campus while riding his bike - do you think the university handled it?</p>
<p>Why should rape be handled differently than other crimes on campus? </p>
<p>I have a lot of relatives, both direct and in-laws, who have never gone to college, and who have done things that were illegal and have had crimes committed against them including rape (some have both committed crimes and been victims of crime, rather common if you are poor and live in a rough neighborhood). I can tell you that people are equally blase about someone going to a party at someone’s house and getting raped, vs. going to a frat party on a college campus and getting raped (as in, some people think "well duh, you went out to a party to have a good time and drink, tough luck). I don’t think there is a “rape culture” on campuses, I think there is a “please don’t besmirch our stellar reputation” on the part of certain colleges, just like the Catholic Church (in certain cases) and the Boy Scouts (again, certain cases) and many other large organizations (BBC anyone?). </p>
<p>And that is the problem - there will be criminals. There will be rapists. There will be people who exploit others on college campuses, both men and women. </p>
<p>What needs to change is the culture of college administrators and of the public - the former more possible by a longshot We can’t let organizations get Federal and state aid but then ignore our laws. And we need to make counseling available, heck, even make one session each semester mandatory, just to make sure we aren’t missing someone who is seriously troubled. (I work for a college, and I am really saddened that often what someone’s life comes down to is a campus-wide email with the student’s name and details on their funeral and how to make donations to a suicide prevention fund)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We actually do not know whether men become rapists because of their “upbringing.” You made that up.</p>
<p>One of the problems I have with solving the problem is that we don’t even know what the problem is. We don’t have any reliable numbers for what exactly is happening and where, and whether either of the parties was drunk. </p>
<p>alh likes to use the condom example, and I like that too. People use condoms now because they were educated about condoms and disease, not because we passed laws forcing them to use condoms. </p>
<p>Preponderance of evidence doesn’t work both ways. A guy could be found guilty in the campus hearing but not guilty under the criminal standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. The accuser has less to prove. The defendant doesn’t have to prove anything. </p>
<p>But as I understand it, the cases in which men have sued the schools over the campus hearings is that they were denied due process. They couldn’t bring in their own witnesses, they couldn’t bring in documentation, and most importantly, the triers of fact (faculty and administrators) were not an unbiased jury of their peers. In one case, a member of the faculty sat as judge in a hearing and he was a relative of the accuser. </p>
<p>What is it that I am reading here? A bunch of 50 somethings wanting to put virtual chastity belts and nalmefeme suppositories on 18-24 year olds who they can no longer control legally because the kids are now - gasp! - adults? Just say No? Really? Will the helicoptering never stop?</p>
<p>Seriously dads and moms, didn’t you learn anything at all from the War on Drugs that you generation launched, destroyed the lives of millions of poor minority kids, fueled drug trade and terrorism across the globe, and at the cost of all this didn’t make a single dent to recreational drug use?</p>
<p>Risky behavior, well, has risks. College kids both boys and girls understand this. They are OK with taking such risks. They know very well that the more they sleep around when intoxicated, the more chances of having a bad experience. It’s like smoking. The chance of heart attack and cancer go up the more you smoke. It is up to people’s own risk preference. If the college kids are OK with their risk tolerance (otherwise the binge drinking and hookup culture won’t exist), who are you to say no?</p>
<p>This paternalistic BS is precisely why kids get tempted to put their parents in the worst nursing homes. (Not me though, I had great, tolerant parents.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I predict it is right here in this quote where advocates will lose the 90% of the populous.</p>
<p>When people start saying that anyone simply accused of a crime should not be presumed innocent, then every person with a logical thought patten thought, “Hey, what if someone mistook me for someone and blamed me for something I did not do?”</p>
<p>And is this not what is happening with Jackie? She seems not to know who she is accusing for attacking her. She is naming names and pointing people out and so far nothing is panning out. Let’s go with the argument that she has PTSD. Then that means she may have the wrong house, wrong guys, wrong school, wrong everything. And given that multiple wrong possibility, people are suggesting that our society should adopt a standard that the accused are not innocent until proven guilty? Are we going as a society start assuming guilt based on the potentially PTSD-induced accusations? Such an approach is not even worthy of being called insane, as it beyond that. </p>
<p>And for people to think this scattershot accusation approach and its resulting damage potential innocent people is justified because Jackie might have been raped is reprehensible. Irrespective of whatever trauma Jackie (or any rape accuser) is going through, that does not give her the right to smear potentially innocent people and then ask that standard should be to assume the people she names are guilty even if nothing she says can be corroborated and there has not even been a formal investigation? I do not even need to address this twisted logic, as I can hear all legal people in the country just cracking up at this suggestion. This concept is beyond jumping the shark. </p>
<p>Advocates on this issue need to get a grip and understand that the trauma someone has because of a crime does not trump the rights of anyone who is accused of said crime. There is no protection of trauma, but there sure is the protection of the accused and the innocent. And yes, the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty. </p>
<p>CF: agree with what you are saying, except to add that the distinction is not always if the accused is not guilty, that the woman was not raped. It could simply be that the man accused was not the rapist. Depending on the circumstance, she may not be clear on who committed the crime. The falsely accused can certainly have his life ruined and it is fair to make that point. The flip side being that the rape victim definitely has her life impacted. </p>
<p>One thing I didn’t know was that there seems to be a difference of opinion on how to support a rape victim on an institutional basis (University or a support group). Some seem to say that the only role of a support network/counselor is to believe and support the victim and not to push for details or try to identify the rapist. Others seem to think the support should be to push the victim to report, get a rape kit etc. The latter would certainly help get serial offenders off campus or determine if a particular fraternity, dorm, or social club is more likely to house perpetrators. Is there an accepted practice? Does a University have an obligation to pursue this to keep other women safe even if the victim does not want to pursue (which may reduce the number of women who would report). Does it depend on the circumstance and on the woman’s willingness to pursue charges? </p>
<p>I, too, read that Eramo said the story Jackie told at the end of freshman year was not what was told to Rolling Stone. As said many pages back, if UVA heard Jackie’s story as per RS and did nothing, that is a huge problem. Regardless of Jackie’s wishes, UVA had the responsibility to ensure that this was not a common practice at the fraternity. If Eramo was told something less horrific, but still bad, perhaps it made sense to follow Jackie’s wishes and support her without investigating further, especially since it was many months later. </p>
<p>Preponderance is not “beyond a reasonable doubt.” (You can look up the legal definition and usage.) We went over and over and over that in one of the former long threads about this. Yes, he can be found guilty on campus but not in an outside court. “A guy can get off because her story doesn’t hold enough water. Or the apparent facts can start to line up.”</p>
<p>The accuser doesn’t necessarily have less to prove. Just plain old “She said” may not be enough. Some of that will depend on the specific campus and its policy. And then the details as they emerge. And Title IX doesn’t say how a kid should be punished. Just the steps a college must take. And that does not include any mandate to allow witnesses, nor an attorney. Nor a jury of their absolute peers- just a committee fairly and defensibly established by the college. There’s more, in Title IX.</p>
<p>DH was on the judicial committee- it’s not easy. </p>
<p>"On campus fraternities required to hire a bartender who serves all drinks except beer which must be distributed in cans or bottles (minimize drinks of unknown origin, with unknown drugs, and of unknown strength). Bartender must be trained/licensed/preferably over 25 and can refuse to serve
- On campus fraternities required to provide sober brothers and/or hire security trained to act as “bystanders” and keep an eye out for potential victims"</p>
<p>I like the cans/bottles idea (no tampering). I shudder to think of the everclear-and-juice bathtub stuff we used to drink …</p>
<p>FWIW, S’s fraternity requires that their parties have X number of sober brothers who are not allowed to drink alcohol during the course of the party, and who serve to prevent things from getting out of control. At one point, S wanted to run for the risk-manager position in his house, and frankly H and I discouraged him from doing so (even though he would be awesome, he’s earnest and responsible and true to himself). It just is a no-win type of thing and heaven forbid there was any kind of bad situation, we’d prefer he not be in the middle of it. </p>
<p>Pay more attention in history class next time, SoWhat. Our generation didn’t launch the War on Drugs. It was launched by Richard Nixon, who was born in 1913-- he was older than our parents. Our generation was the one taking the drugs, not fighting the drugs.</p>