There is a difference between blaming victims for the offense committed by others, and blaming victims for their reaction to that offense. As I said in my previous post, I think it’s time women get serious about this and that entails changing how they respond. If a criminal offense was committed, then be strong, be brave and press charges. If not, use other methods to punish the offenders, like social exclusion. But don’t keep rewarding boorish males by seeking their approval.
On my first week as a freshman college student checking out some frat parties, I figured out pretty quick what that scene was about and decided it was demeaning. Many other girls didn’t like it either. But the difference between them and me was that I stopped going to frat parties. They didn’t because they valued popularity and social status too much. I also refused to date jerks, no matter how rich, cute, or athletic. They didn’t, because they enjoyed getting attention from popular guys. My point is women have power and they should use it. Unfortunately, I just don’t see that happening. To the contrary, I see girls today being incredibly aggressive in throwing themselves at dumb men. They need to have some self respect.
And here’s a public service announcement: FRATERNITY PARTIES ARE NOT FEMALE-FRIENDLY. Don’t go if you want to avoid being groped, drugged, and assaulted. Another news flash: MANY (NOT ALL) MALE ATHLETES DISRESPECT WOMEN. Buyer beware. So stop idolizing them. Stop thinking it’s a coup to date the high school quarterback. (And, as I told my daughters, maybe you shouldn’t become a cheerleader.)
The comments on the articles in the Crimson are pretty telling. Some seem to think this is an over-reaction by Pc feminists and that “boys will be boys”. The season was cancelled (look at the updated story on the Crimson website) because the practice continues to this team and apparently the men did not tell the truth. Having the season cancelled stinks for those that did not participate in this, but none of them did anything to stop it. The administration was right to cancel, regardless of the possibility of winning the championship. Nothing less would really bring home how offensive this really is.
I don’t think free speech protects commenting publicly (at least the 2012 list was widely available) about women’s looks and what sexual position they would like. I can’t imagine any women would be happy about this, especially fellow soccer players who would feel a camaraderie with their male counterparts.
Speaking as a guy and a former college athelete, if you want to change attitudes and behavior of 20 something college guys, this is really not the way to go about it.
And not that it will matter to the firebreathers, but @maya54 is precisley correct on the law, and I share her concern about the action taken by the school.
Last year, the New York Times had a page-long exposé on practices by male students at the Harvard Business School that were not quite as extreme, but were also degrading to the women at the business school. The Times also reported that when people were sent to the classes to record answers and comments by women and men, the class-participation scores of women went up appreciably.
I think that people are overlooking the fact that Harvard gets too few applications from men who would not act like this to make it possible to prevent such behavior. Right, I’m sure that’s the explanation.
I would like to add that it is sometimes claimed on CC that the admissions personnel have special insight into adolescent psychology, which they use in selecting the most promising students for the incoming class. Situations like this, and the admissions success of Owen Labrie and Brock Turner suggest to me that this is just false. And wasn’t Labrie a soccer player?
@Dungareedoll if such a report existed at your workplace, would the subjects of the “report” be entitled to seek damages against the perpetrators (and the employer, if they did nothing?). You bet your behind.
Those involved or lied about it would be fired tout suite. Thus sayeth HR. To think that Harvard would not hammer these jokers is absurd.
In no form or fashion is this a “free speech” situation.
Also, I think this does re-calibrate how people think. I can trace back to days when I would have parceled out sexist remarks about women’s attractiveness. I can recall anti-gay jokes I made off-handedly when I was younger. Life and time (and parenting 2 females) has made me wiser. Harvard’s punishment of these guys will make people take note.
Society is going to have to figure out where this speech belongs on the gray scale of being acceptable to not acceptable. I am not totally shocked that a bunch of young men would want to talk about woman in a sexual manner. As far as the comments on girls doing sexual acts? How is this even ascertainable? I got the impression they took the female roster and went to town with comments. But how does that get to sexual acts the girls prefer?
Men will frequently comment on woman’s physical attributes in locker rooms. Whether they say the girl has a nice “rack” or “booty” or legs, whatever. Again, I cannot understand how it got to sex acts other than them just making stupid speculations - which we all call “trash talk”. Good luck trying to stamp out trash talk.
But this talk is contrasted to what the Candidate mentioned on tape. Locker room talk is not “I am gonna drag that girl behind the tree and attack her”. That would not be acceptable or funny in a locker room. In fact, the opposite would be true. That guy would be called out on it.
“I don’t think free speech protects commenting publicly (at least the 2012 list was widely available) about women’s looks and what sexual position they would like. I can’t imagine any women would be happy about this, especially fellow soccer players who would feel a camaraderie with their male counterparts.”
This is why Free Speech attorneys weep at the ignorance of the American Public. Even Hate Speech is protected speech people. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 505 U.S. 377, 396, 112 S. Ct. 2538, 2550, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992)
No Harvard doesn’t have to protect free speech. Unlike Berkeley or Michigan, for example. But they say that they do. They may have made a contractual commitment to do so.
You don’t even realize how dangerous what you are saying is.
“if such a report existed at your workplace, would the subjects of the “report” be entitled to seek damages against the perpetrators (and the employer, if they did nothing?). You bet your behind.”
To "seek’ damages, sure. Anyone can file a lawsuit. To obtain them. Highly unlikely under the circumstances here. I litigate dozens of sexual harassment cases. This one would not get past a motion to dismiss.
I can’t say whether or not Harvard over reacted or not, there is very little being reported about what This Year’s team did warranted this action also, but I find it ironic that we live in a society where publications devote entire issues to the sexiest men, or women in skimpy swimsuits and very little gets “said” in the very media that perpetuates these things. But put something out there about a very small percentage of all men who are athletes and every major news outlet and every feminist activist goes nuts.
@Jara123 Did you get the impression that this “scouting report” was a private document? What if this had been the personal journal of a soccer player? If one shares a personal journal with another, then another, when does it reach a point of not being personal and enter into a different class of document? And do we know how it was discovered?
It doesn’t have to be a ‘private’ document to be protected. All speech is protected to some degree. The RAV case involves PUBLIC cross burning. Pretty damn offensive and not private . Sometimes speech can rise to the level of illegal harassment and not be protected. But when people are not actually attempting to harass, that is to say to direct their speech to the effected party. When they are speaking or writing among themselves, there is not even a question that this is not considered ‘harassment’ under the law. Even if others end up finding or having access to the speech/writing.
@wisteria100 - I think you are attributing things that are not in the article. It said nothing about so and so likes to do with multiple men, or so and so takes it wherever. You are adding that to the story.
The article in The Crimson said:
“Harvard has cancelled the men’s soccer team’s season after an Office of General Counsel review found that the team continued to produce vulgar and explicit documents rating women on their perceived sexual appeal and physical appearance.”
I don’t have a daughter but I am a woman. I don’t think that every insulting and vulgar thing a man says about women is a crime. It can be vulgar and insulting without being raised to the level of a crime or injustice. Vulgar and insulting speech are absolutely covered by the Constitution but this is not a Constitutional issue.
These young men might be boors. I don’t understand why being a boor is an issue that universities have to stop. It is unpleasant but it doesn’t hold as much importance as Harvard’s actions suggest. Rating women on sexual appeal and physical appearance is boorish but does not constitute any type of quasi criminal offense. It’s stupid, boorish and vulgar but since when do students get thrown out of school for being immature and vulgar?
First off I want to say that I couldn’t agree more with GFG. Well stated! Women have victimized themselves these days. Honestly, its 'deplorable!" Yes, thats what I said. I’m tired of women making choices and then not liking the results of their choices, thereby now placing the blame on someone else (usually a man). Time to grow up ladies. You can’t have it all. Like GFG said if you don’t want the attention then don’t put it out there. And don’t give me this nonsense that “you” should be entitled to wear what you want, without harassment. Because the bottom-line is that the world is not fair. And if ‘you’ want the freedom to do as you want, then others (men) should be able to say what they want. You may not like it, but tha’ts too bad. Again, the pendulum swings both ways. Women shouldn’t put themselves in a position to be demeaned. And in the case of this list, whats the big deal. Grow up! Get a backbone. People’s sensibilities are disturbingly pathetic these days. What happened to sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never harm me. This is a man’s world ladies. Its time to grow a set!
i tend to agree Proudpatirot…I can’t speculate what the document said in 2012 or now in 2016…but the action taken is pretty severe for any soccer players who weren’t involved in my opinion. On surface it seems like their are several avenues Harvard could have taken that would not punish those not involved. With no information it feels like another knee jerk reaction by college administrators desperately wanting to cushion females. But without lack of specificity it’s difficult to project.
You write: “I don’t think free speech protects commenting publicly (at least the 2012 list was widely available) about women’s looks and what sexual position they would like. I can’t imagine any women would be happy about this, especially fellow soccer players who would feel a camaraderie with their male counterparts.”
Free speech absolutely protects commenting publicly about women’s looks. The Crimson article didn’t say anything about what sexual positions they would like. However, speculating about such things is absolutely covered by free speech.
I agree that women would be unhappy about it. That doesn’t make it illegal.
@HarvestMoon1 - Which statements are the ones that would not be covered by free speech? The words are immature, and boorish. They are also speculative. As far as I can tell immature, boorish words are still protected speech.