I’m not padding blame but why do sorority houses continue to send their members or why do others continue to go ?
I would not walk down a street known for drugs, prostitution, and robbery.
If I’m robbed or assaulted on that street, it’s 100% not my fault. I did nothing to ask for it.
But I “should’ve known better” - to quote Richard Marx.
The federal government rates countries - level 2, 3, 4 etc.
Maybe college police departments should do the same of college organizations - Greek or otherwise ?
I personally think it’s oversimplifying to say - the reason people are victims is because they are raped.
It’s moreso - because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. People voluntarily go to these cess pools of drugs and alcohol and partake, as Jane Doe did.
So how do we get people to stop going ? I imagine the allure of drugs, booze and a planned sexual encounter wouldn’t have kept Jane Doe away.
Like anything, if no one attended the parties, they’d shut down. Maybe this wouldn’t happen. Maybe…
Jane Doe, nor anyone, deserves to be assaulted.
But we take basic safety precautions daily. It’s part of being human.
The excessive drinking and drugging in college culture exists for both genders and both need to take responsibility for being occasionally irresponsible in their actions.
The article blaming sorority culture is not true for every sorority on every campus. There are many that do not engage in these practices - but even those that do, should not expect to be penalized with a sexual assault. Colleges could abolish Greek life on every campus, and the problem would just spill over to house parties or dorm parties because the behavior would still exist.
From my observation as a parent of two sorority members on 2 different campuses, fraternities are held to a lesser standard by their national organizations with regards to alcohol and drug violations (and hazing, but that’s another thread), than sororities. Lots of heads turn the other way with the fraternities, including college administrators.
The behaviors continue because in most cases they are lightly punished or not punished at all. SA continues to happen because only a scant few are ever brought to justice. The message is: you can take whomever you want and not face a punishment. Drugs & alcohol fuel the bravado, and colleges refuse to take a hard stance on the excessive (and in many cases underage) drinking culture on their campuses - other than the bare CYA minimum.
One could argue that a college-aged person’s brains aren’t fully developed yet. They are in the height of their mistake-making years. They think going to college is like a trip to Disney World, where everything is perfect and nothing bad can happen.
Jane Doe attorney Thomas Giuffra yesterday in an interview with Fox News making a joke out of his client’s case, that she had no ability to consent to anything, so everything is bad and someone else’s fault: [1]
Fox: Overall, there just seems to be this idea that when people read these text messages and the narrative that’s been out there, there is a sense from reading the text messages that Jane Doe at least wanted to have sex with two of those men. Your civil lawsuit is unequivocal that she was raped by all of the men.
Giuffra: Yes.
Fox: …that she was totally incapacitated, forced to do all of this, even though there are text messages and documents out there that show Jane Doe was interested in having sex with at least two of the men, and there are friendly texts before and after. Why go so far in your civil lawsuit to accuse all seven of forced rape…Isn’t there a plausibility here that she wanted to have sex with two of the seven men, and that it was rape by the other men at some point in that night?
Giuffra: What I wanted to be clear on, and I’ve said this many times, and the complaint says this, I’m not saying every single one of these men committed rape. I’m certainly not saying that. What I am saying is, the evidence that shows, and again, people look in little slivers and cherry pick to try to present a narrative, she was intoxicated from the time she left her sorority house. She should have never left that sorority house. Never, never, never. And she went out into the world, she’s served alcohol in two different bars, and then she shows up there. She had no ability to consent. Period.
There is a great deal of misinformation. Rather than repeat the details again in this thread, I’ll ask why after Cornell’s 5 month long internal investigation that involved interviews with 32 witness, reviewing all of the discussed texts, reviewing forensic and medical records, and numerous other material did Cornell choose to expel only the 2 students for which the Fox interviewer implies the sex was consensual and not expel any of the other students?
You’ve alluded to this a number of times, but don’t you think that it’s a bit odd that “the wrong time and wrong place” is a house/organization sanctioned by the school? It even lists their fraternities on its website and talks about the benefits of Greek life. Should a woman have to worry about if going to any school event is dangerous? If fraternities are the wrong time/wrong place than schools need to get rid of them or face the responsibility of allowing them as school organizations.
Someone brought this up - the pressure on the schools from alums orcor whatever it was. So yeah the schools are selling people out for money. The schools didn’t cause the issue etc but they are complicit in allowing these organizations.
Btw at the beginning, many of you were slamming the people that said this - stay safe. Then the lady who goes on national tv says avoid the booze etc - same thing and you all thumbs up.
No one has ever said this is right.
Now I’m confused by @Data10 His last post said the only two expelled were the ones she voluntarily had sex with. So now are we saying it was assault - others touching her but not rape - ie penetration.
Sadly men and women have to worry no matter where they go - the gym, grocery store, school etc. so yes they do.
So women have to take responsibility of being in the wrong place, but even the gym or grocery store is the wrong place? I guess the only solution is to lock ourselves away at home or else we are complicit in our own rapes.
Oh, wait, you included men, too. Not sure how I feel about that. Do we all need to lock ourselves away? What has happened to actually recognizing that it’s the criminals that are responsible for the crimes they commit.? No one is forced to rape,rob, or commit arson. No matter how short the skirt was or how expensive the Rolex is.
Again you twist words. No one is saying complicit.
But in essence, yes we all - not just women - need to take steps to protect ourselves. Even at home it’s the case - why people have alarms and some guns.
Complicit isn’t the right word.
I’m not assigning guilt. No victim is guilty but they will live with this forever.
Doing one’s best to avoid danger is common sense.
Even the lady you all got giddy about (old poster who went on tv) said that.
You are so focused on women. And rights. This isn’t a feminism issue. This particular instance was against women although Jane Doe woke some drunk guy up (maybe to perform and if so he was victimized too) - but the ‘cure’ if you will is genderless and situation-less - you’re missing that. The cure (or best we have) is to always be aware and avoid stupidity.
But I do agree with the comment that the brain at 19 is different than at 40. I’m guessing Jane Doe would have made different choices at 40 vs 19 - as would have those accused.
Again, at this point, no one has been found to commit assault. Yet you’ve labeled everyone guilty.
We can agree some wrote/said disgusting things.
The courts will have to decide the rest.
Based on the texts, I can’t imagine they will - and women will be on that jury.
What if we take sex out the equation. What if it’s a traffic accident. Someone has to much to drink and turns left when the oncoming car is a bit too close, but the accident can be easily avoided if the oncoming car is alert and puts on their brakes. Doesn’t have to slam them on to avoid the collision, just slow down a bit. But they too have been drinking, and have friends in the car they are talking and laughing with, and they slam right into the first car. Who’s to blame here? Does the fact that the first car’s driver is maybe 20% to blame excuse the crime if the second? What if it’s 30%? In either case the second car could have easily avoided the collision, had they been somewhat sober and paying attention. In my mind the person who actually commits the crime should be held to the higher standard even if the victim isn’t perfect. And regardless of whether Jane Doe was drunk and would have had sex with guy number 1, and even his friend, I think most decent men would have said this woman is out of her mind drunk and high (and I believe they had given her the drugs) and I’m going to hold off for another time. Much less texted all their friends and said come on over. So even if JD was say 20% to blame, if a crime was committed (which the court will decide) the perpetrators are still guilty.
That was not what my post said. Using different wording, my post asked why after doing a detailed 5-month review the Cornell investigation came to a completely different conclusion than did the Fox interviewer after apparently reading a few texts? The implied answer is that there are additional factors to consider beyond the ones the Fox interviewer mentions.
For example, Doe agreeing to a threesome at start of night does not mean she agreed to everything else that occurred during the subsequent ~7 hours. The tone of Doe’s texts changing from friendly terms in first few days to non-friendly later on does not prove that the students she was texting with did not commit SA, or that Doe was okay with everything that happened. There were a variety of different violations and considerations beyond just whether the first threesome was consensual vs non-consensual sex. The 7 students did different things and received different penalties corresponding to those different actions/violations.
Sure, Cornell is reviewing against their own policies and their interpretation of law, so only they can speak to the differential punishment of the group. Those two may have been expelled for facilitating rape later in the evening, or by their own assaulting actions, or a combination of both. I don’t know. But the Fox reporter is the only one that I am aware of to have asked the question in a manner that, IMO, is most obvious to many laypeople unburdened by the Cornell policies—she appears to have consented to something, but her attorney says she consented to nothing (hence, my post).
You have a much more generous interpretation of college disciplinary proceedings (or private deliberations) than I do. And I admit my own bias upfront- I know a freshman who was raped at a fraternity party. She dropped out (apparently the very kind deans and administration explained it would be best for her-- so thoughtful of them). Her rapist stayed. A bystander called 911 when he saw a bleeding woman vomiting outside the frat house early the next morning.
The only reason this case got ANY attention is that a female first responder-- in apparent violation of HIPAA, insisted on taking the case to the college administration. Even with the detailed medical notes-- her BAC, the physical evidence of a violent attack, the attackers DNA under her fingernails with clear evidence that she’d tried to claw her way out of a dangerous situation, all the physical/medical ways that this was clearly not a “he said/she said” consensual situation- the perp got a degree, the victim got the boot.
I am not convinced that “differential penalties” correspond to differing levels of violations. More likely that the more affluent/connected frat members had access to better legal advice who are adept at the “let’s put this behind us, shall we?” maneuvering.
On Tuesday you told a guy you like his jeans and he looked hot. Maybe even said, I’d like to have intercourse with you sometime. Maybe you were even more specific and named the act and the date.
Then you showed up drunk out of your mind at or around that date. So much so that you were slurring your words and stumbling. The guy decided not only to have sex with you, but invite a bunch of other guys to as well. It’s rape. You didn’t consent.
A legitimate reporter understands that. If they are asking the question, it’s not to make the law clear, it’s to sully the victim.
Fox knows this. They know the definition. That is why their legal team isn’t asking a question about the law, but one specifically about The woman’s actions that make her an “acceptable victim”.
So you’re saying the threesome was rape - even after her texts ? Why couldn’t one argue she raped them too - if they were out of it ? One guy had to be awoken - although I’m not sure if it was for sex or just to ensure he was ok.
It’s almost to the point of if anyone drinks anything, you are claiming a basis to claim rape.
Anyway I hope this gets litigated and resolved. For those involved it never will be resolved but hopefully for the Cornell campus, they can put better rules in place (although you can’t prevent stupid) and the school can get back to being a place of learning.
There is a good amount of information about what the different 7 students did. The students accused of what I perceive as more severe violations received more severe penalties. Specifics are below:
Scott K / Scott N – Accused of entering bedroom after seeing group chat messages and snorting ketamine off Doe’s body. Not accused of having sex with Doe. Scott K denies taking drugs and provided hair sample showing no ketamine in system. Received no contact order, required education training, and required reflection papers.
Sarabia – Accused of entering bedroom after seeing Snapchat message and forcibly kissing Doe, after which Doe pushed him away. Not accused of having sex with Doe. Received 3-year campus ban (not a current student, so cannot be suspended).
Lopes – Accused of having non-consensual sex with Doe in 2nd threesome during which Doe was more incapacitated than at start. Lopes claims to have left before Snapchat messages and claims was consensual. Both claims are disputed. Received 3-semester suspension + 2 years disciplinary probation.
Lee – Accused of entering bedroom after seeing Snapchat message, drug violations, taking Doe to another room for final threesome when Doe was most incapacitated, and having non-consensual sex with Doe. Received 2-year suspension + disciplinary probation.
Ingalls – Original friend of Doe who proposed threesome with other frat members. Accused of directly pressuring Doe to consume drugs and sexually assaulting Doe. Accused of moving Doe to 2nd room for final threesome when Doe was most incapacitated and having non-consensual sex with Doe. Investigation stated Ingalls was “willing to manipulate, exploit and endanger Jane Doe out of self-interest and for the entertainment of others.” Expelled.
Newell – Accused of facilitating sexual assault by writing initial “free p*****” Groupchat message encouraging other to come in to room. Accused of directly pressuring Doe to consume drugs and sexually assaulting Doe. Accused of physically harming Doe with bruising. Expelled.
So Scott K says he didn’t take drugs and a toxicology report proved it - so punished why ?
Sarabia is - yes assault and if all Cornell can do is ban or expel, expel seems proper. I don’t know why they banned.
Newell seems appropriately punished - not for the white board but the rest if true
So there was a second threesome ??
Geez. This is just gross.
It will be crazy to hear it all in court. She is gutsy to sue bcuz all their lives will be laid put, sadly. She will need to be mentally strong because they will attempt to destroy her and it will be much worse than this.