I'm arguing that people don't have as much of a right to their state school spot as you all seem to think. It seems like you're all placing an undue emphasis on an individual's right to the state school enrollment spot.
I have read two articles now from men who have suffered lifelong consequences (social, occupational, financial) from an accusation made to their college, even though they were never charged or even had a hearing.
I imagine you have heard the claim that there are no laws in international waters (I don't know if there is any truth to it, that's irrelevant) We both can agree that torturing someone to death is wrong right, heck pure evil. Would it seem odd to you that people are upset that someone tortured someone to death in international waters and the victim's family has no legal means of redress. It didn't somehow become NOT EVIL just because of a loophole that prevents charges from being brought against the perpetrator. The reason why our constitution protects us from a trial without these protections is because it would be profoundly unjust. I understand the motivations behind those who created this system, who view themselves as fighting an evil white male conspiracy etc. and that is its own bag of crazy, I also understand their warped two wrongs make a right version of justice. It may not have yet been deemed unconstitutional by a court but it certainly should be.
When we're talking about disciplinary proceedings by a state actor against an employee, it's an issue of the employee's property rights versus the state's interest in the case law. Some states may handle it differently, but it's ultimately a contract dispute, as it would be in the case of a state school.
What I find so perverse is the Title IX law was created to protect people against gender discrimination that would prevent/hinder their participation in higher education and it has been transformed via social justices up is down, war is peace, jackassery into a weapon to discriminate against a gender.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
I have read two articles now from men who have suffered lifelong consequences (social, occupational, financial) from an accusation made to their college, even though they were never charged or even had a hearing.
I should be clear here and say that I think those cases are wrong. They were definitely entitled to due process, and the way the schools handled those cases was abysmal.
When we're talking about disciplinary proceedings by a state actor against an employee, it's an issue of the employee's property rights versus the state's interest in the case law. Some states may handle it differently, but it's ultimately a contract dispute, as it would be in the case of a state school.
What I find so perverse is the Title IX law was created to protect people against gender discrimination that would prevent/hinder their participation in higher education and it has been transformed via social justices up is down, war is peace, jackassery into a weapon to discriminate against a gender.
We need to separate poor implementation from the idea itself being bad here. A lot of the complaints both MRAs AND Feminists have is because state schools have basically been incompetent when it comes to handling these cases. Even the head of RAINN has said (I don't have a reference, heard it on NPR a few months ago) that the laws are in a good place, we just need to improve implementation.
Even the head of RAINN has said (I don't have a reference, heard it on NPR a few months ago) that the laws are in a good place, we just need to improve implementation.
What really concerns me about this is that the reporter in question is continuing to write for Rolling Stone. After the magazine basically admitting that the author of the story failed on every level to apply even basic journalism, after a scathing report on how badly Rolling Stone screwed up, this woman faces no negative repercussions? Really?
The other question I have is what do we learn from this? It's been turning around in my brain for a while.
In my mind, the moral of this story is that we as a society must learn to take rape seriously, and treat it as the heinous crime it is. That means two things need to start happening:
1. We need to listen and take heed when someone claims to have been raped.
2. We cannot take for granted that a rape claim is true.
That second one might be a bitter truth to swallow, but we've learned what happens when people take for granted that a rape accusation is true without looking into the facts.
If we are to take rape seriously as a crime, that means we must take any rape accusation as what it is: a claim that a heinous crime has been committed, and we must respond accordingly, and that means investigating a case thoroughly from both sides. We cannot ignore the accuser of a crime. We cannot ignore the accused of a crime.
Otherwise, all we are doing is jumping to a conclusion without any basis, and that is the opposite of taking a crime seriously.
What really concerns me about this is that the reporter in question is continuing to write for Rolling Stone. After the magazine basically admitting that the author of the story failed on every level to apply even basic journalism, after a scathing report on how badly Rolling Stone screwed up, this woman faces no negative repercussions? Really?
Bringing down this kind of bad publicity and legal liability is obviously a firing offense for an employee... but Sabrina Rubin Erdely is a freelancer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Bringing down this kind of bad publicity and legal liability is obviously a firing offense for an employee... but Sabrina Rubin Erdely is a freelancer.
Either way she's still writing for them, though. And the editors who handled her story wouldn't be freelance, right?
The fact that Rolling Stone responded by calling for the resignations of no one is puzzling, although it's only been a day, we'll see what happens as time goes on.
Sorry for the delayed response. I have a tendency to forget about interesting threads when work gets busy. Glad to see this come back up to the top because I want to respond:
Well, there are a couple issues with this. The punishments handed down by the school aren't any different that any other disciplinary actions provided by the state to an employee or contractor or whatever. Disciplinary actions aren't really criminal cases, and shouldn't be, for obvious reasons. There is a wide gulf between disciplinary action and criminal proceeding. If I were a state employee who stole equipment from the state, for instance, I'd be facing a disciplinary hearing for my job and then the state could potentially pursue criminal charges. Getting fired from my job is a punishment from a state actor, and I should get due process for it, but that still doesn't make it a criminal proceeding. These are two separate processes.
Now, if the question is if the school's disciplinary proceedings are adequate, I agree with you. I'm not saying their implementation of these proceedings are correct, I'm arguing that people don't have as much of a right to their state school spot as you all seem to think. It seems like you're all placing an undue emphasis on an individual's right to the state school enrollment spot.
I think there is (or at least should be) a huge difference between a state disciplinary proceeding against an employee and a school disciplinary proceeding against a student.
A job is not a right or an entitlement one holds. An employee can be laid off without warning for budgetary reasons, for example. Generally you have no guarantee that your job will still be there when you wake up tomorrow morning. So while I think it's a good thing that the state provides a formal disciplinary process for employees, I don't see this protection as a requirement. The state can hire and fire whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants (as long as it's not engaging in discrimination or nepotism).
Being accepted to a college is more like a four-year contract. The school is taking your money and time, and agreeing to educate you in return. Yes, you have to meet certain standards as a student (grades, behavior, etc) but as long as you meet those standards you're entitled to your spot in the school. You can't be "laid off" for no reason like an employee can. It should be the school's burden to prove you violated campus policy, otherwise you have the right to be there.
If I go to work tomorrow morning and a senior partner says "I don't like the color of the suit you're wearing; clean out your desk, you're fired," he's within his rights to do that. A college is being payed to provide a service to me; it does not have the right to expel me for arbitrary reasons.
The "apology" hardly even seems to be anything more then another oppurtunity to plug "rape culture" propaganda it even still refers to the accused as "the perpetrators" and the accusers as "victims/survivors". I have come to learn that the frats involved are going to sue rolling stone, I'm really hoping they make it painful.
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
This thread is missing something critical--the opinions of women.
UVA is my alma mater. So this story hit close to home. When the story first came out, prior to the retraction, I spoke to a few of my female friends
from UVA for their opinions both prior to and following the retraction. This is my assessment of their opinions:
1. The fact that Jackie lied is almost inconsequential to them.
This was outright shocking to me. Everyone of them had the opinion that *something* awful happened to Jackie, and that the process of evidence gathering was merely another example of their claims being viewed with skepticism by the powers that be. They blame rolling stone. They do not blame Jackie.
2. The enormity of the toll of the false accusations against the males doesn't hit them.
This too shocked the hell out of me. You're talking about the life and reputation of young men who are innocent. You're destroying their futures regardless of guilt. Guess what... not that big a deal.
3. Catching the rapist was NOT the most important thing they were looking for in all this.
Shocking the hell out of me for the third time. Bringing the perpetrator to justice was not the foremost goal in their mind.
4. The most important thing to all of them was, believing the rape victim, ensuring she could get the right support, facilitating discussion, and fostering an environment where they could feel safe. (notwithstanding some minor conflict with #3)
The women I spoke to were all highly educated, intelligent, and NOT raging feminists. My assessment of their opinions is that the story of Jackie strikes at some of their deepest fears. It's not just a fear of being raped, but a fear of going through the system, of actually having to address even objective questions as to the circumstances of the crime.
All of their reactions were highly emotional, and the force of reason and logic was not particularly compelling on any of them. I think for men, it is important to understand that the opinions of women on this issue are highly visceral. Fear of rape is an extremely powerful and deep-seated force in their psyche.
Because of that, emphasis on the objective, the rational, even vigilant dedication to bringing perpetrators to justice is not particularly comforting to them. They are looking for something more comforting. Men will have to understand women a little better on this issue in order to come together and build the kind of responsiveness women are looking for into the administration.
The women I spoke to were all highly educated, intelligent, and NOT raging feminists. My assessment of their opinions is that the story of Jackie strikes at some of their deepest fears. It's not just a fear of being raped, but a fear of going through the system, of actually having to address even objective questions as to the circumstances of the crime.
All of their reactions were highly emotional, and the force of reason and logic was not particularly compelling on any of them. I think for men, it is important to understand that the opinions of women on this issue are highly visceral. Fear of rape is an extremely powerful and deep-seated force in their psyche.
"Women are just less rational and more emotional"? I refuse to believe that's true, and I suspect even some of the women whose opinions you're characterizing this way would strongly object to it. I don't like to pass judgment on secondhand positions. You may be missing some nuance or underlying reasoning, or (no accusation intended) simply be getting some points wrong. But if some hypothetical woman does believe just as you report, it would not be because she is a woman, and certainly not all women would believe the same way she does. It would not even be because she is more "emotional" per se. It would be because, in her evaluation, she identifies only with one party, Jackie.
We all do it. When a controversial news story like the Rolling Stone article or the Ferguson shooting breaks, we pick the person involved who seems to most resemble us, put ourselves in their shoes, and defend their/our interests. But what we need to be aware of is that this is wrong. It is a cognitive bias to be resisted rather than indulged. We cannot base democratic policy on such reasoning - not "should not", literally cannot, because democracy by definition involves accounting for the interests of everybody. We can't write a law saying "Let's strip-search all Muslims at airports" because it treats the Muslims as outsiders whose desire not to be strip-searched is irrelevant. An unfortunately large portion of non-Muslim America thinks Muslims are outsiders, but we can't take their policy proposition and still call ourselves a free country. Even though this might mean saying "no" to a 9/11 survivor who honestly thinks they can't feel safe again as long as swarthy men with beards can board airplanes.
There's no future in arguing whether rape or 9/11 is "equivalent" or "worse", but I think we can all agree that they both fall into the category of extremely traumatic experiences. And of course, the democratic principle of accounting for the interests of everybody means addressing these survivors' needs as well. They need help. They emphatically don't need to be vilified as bigots or liars. But - as patronizing as it may sound - oftentimes the help people need is not the help they're asking for. I don't oppose this identity warfare of disregarding outsiders' rights solely because it's undemocratic; I also oppose it because, in the long run, it makes the supposed "insiders" feel less secure. Let's imagine we helped our 9/11 survivor by strip-searching all Muslims. Now they know that there will be no repeat of the attack. But in their mind, Muslims are still outsiders, still enemies, still out to get them - in fact, we've encouraged this line of thinking by agreeing to treat Muslims as such. And that is not conducive to peace of mind. Wouldn't it be better for everybody, Muslims and survivor alike, if the help instead focused on breaking down this identity barrier so that Muslims could be seen not as outsiders but as human beings like any other?
tl;dr: Identity politics are toxic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
all that this is about, is the fraternity in question is saying that this didn't happen? like, that's it? the fraternity accused of gang rape goes "actually we didn't have an official party that night" and somehow the RS editor can't deal with this? i was expecting something more substantial.
Are you saying that the frat has to prove that they're innocent?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Are you saying that the frat has to prove that they're innocent?
I'm saying that the fraternity issuing a statement saying none of their guys did it doesn't mean that she wasn't raped at all.
If a journalist who has been investigating this story for a long time has no rebuttal to the fraternity saying "yeah, we didn't do it," doesn't that imply something about the quality of the journalist's investigation? Doesn't that imply something about the veracity of the story that was published?
I'm saying that the fraternity issuing a statement saying none of their guys did it doesn't mean that she wasn't raped at all.
You're just paraphrasing what has already been said by numerous parties, including the Columbia School of Journalism report and the Charlottesville police. The emerging consensus on this matter seems to be that something traumatic probably did happen to her, but we don't know what it was and the particular story told in Rolling Stone is contradicted by the evidence. I don't see many people (outside the usual suspects in the MRA crowd) who are outright calling her a liar. The focus is on the magazine's lousy journalism instead.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm saying that the fraternity issuing a statement saying none of their guys did it doesn't mean that she wasn't raped at all.
You're just paraphrasing what has already been said by numerous parties, including the Columbia School of Journalism report and the Charlottesville police. The emerging consensus on this matter seems to be that something traumatic probably did happen to her, but we don't know what it was and the particular story told in Rolling Stone is contradicted by the evidence. I don't see many people (outside the usual suspects in the MRA crowd) who are outright calling her a liar. The focus is on the magazine's lousy journalism instead.
I wouldn't say that I've seen anyone calling "Jackie" a liar. I have seen people calling Erdly a liar, and (in my opinion), rightfully so.
I wouldn't say that I've seen anyone calling "Jackie" a liar. I have seen people calling Erdly a liar, and (in my opinion), rightfully so.
Eh. It's definitely scummy that her response to this retraction was basically "I wish my editors had pushed me harder to fact-check." And I don't think it's just laziness that she didn't fact-check - I think the problem was that she wanted the story to be true (which is pretty twisted when you think about it, and I don't think she was the only one either). Her conduct was overall completely inappropriate for a journalist. But I don't see anything to indicate that she knew the story was false and turned it in anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The women I spoke to were all highly educated, intelligent, and NOT raging feminists. My assessment of their opinions is that the story of Jackie strikes at some of their deepest fears. It's not just a fear of being raped, but a fear of going through the system, of actually having to address even objective questions as to the circumstances of the crime.
All of their reactions were highly emotional, and the force of reason and logic was not particularly compelling on any of them. I think for men, it is important to understand that the opinions of women on this issue are highly visceral. Fear of rape is an extremely powerful and deep-seated force in their psyche.
"Women are just less rational and more emotional"? I refuse to believe that's true, and I suspect even some of the women whose opinions you're characterizing this way would strongly object to it. I don't like to pass judgment on secondhand positions. You may be missing some nuance or underlying reasoning, or (no accusation intended) simply be getting some points wrong. But if some hypothetical woman does believe just as you report, it would not be because she is a woman, and certainly not all women would believe the same way she does. It would not even be because she is more "emotional" per se. It would be because, in her evaluation, she identifies only with one party, Jackie.
We all do it. When a controversial news story like the Rolling Stone article or the Ferguson shooting breaks, we pick the person involved who seems to most resemble us, put ourselves in their shoes, and defend their/our interests. But what we need to be aware of is that this is wrong. It is a cognitive bias to be resisted rather than indulged. We cannot base democratic policy on such reasoning - not "should not", literally cannot, because democracy by definition involves accounting for the interests of everybody. We can't write a law saying "Let's strip-search all Muslims at airports" because it treats the Muslims as outsiders whose desire not to be strip-searched is irrelevant. An unfortunately large portion of non-Muslim America thinks Muslims are outsiders, but we can't take their policy proposition and still call ourselves a free country. Even though this might mean saying "no" to a 9/11 survivor who honestly thinks they can't feel safe again as long as swarthy men with beards can board airplanes.
There's no future in arguing whether rape or 9/11 is "equivalent" or "worse", but I think we can all agree that they both fall into the category of extremely traumatic experiences. And of course, the democratic principle of accounting for the interests of everybody means addressing these survivors' needs as well. They need help. They emphatically don't need to be vilified as bigots or liars. But - as patronizing as it may sound - oftentimes the help people need is not the help they're asking for. I don't oppose this identity warfare of disregarding outsiders' rights solely because it's undemocratic; I also oppose it because, in the long run, it makes the supposed "insiders" feel less secure. Let's imagine we helped our 9/11 survivor by strip-searching all Muslims. Now they know that there will be no repeat of the attack. But in their mind, Muslims are still outsiders, still enemies, still out to get them - in fact, we've encouraged this line of thinking by agreeing to treat Muslims as such. And that is not conducive to peace of mind. Wouldn't it be better for everybody, Muslims and survivor alike, if the help instead focused on breaking down this identity barrier so that Muslims could be seen not as outsiders but as human beings like any other?
tl;dr: Identity politics are toxic.
I never said that women are less rational and more emotional. I think you're over generalizing my friends' opinions. But let's take the bull by the horns: would it be any real surprise if on the issue of rape, women were in fact more emotional about it than men? Men by and large do not live in fear of rape. I would say that there any many women who do live with that fear. I'm not going to generalize beyond that, but what I will say is that among the women I've spoken with, they are afraid to walk home alone when it gets dark (not harlem at 2 am dark, but walking back from the school library at 9pm dark)
Rape is for many women, their worst fears realized, and to me it shouldn't be any surprise that they have a different take on it than men do. As one of the women I talked to stated plainly, "women have a prey mentality."
When it comes to potential violence, they see themselves as prey. They ask themselves "what's going to happen to me?" This doesn't necessarily apply to all women, there are always exceptions.
At any rate, I think acknowledging that a sizable block of women see things that way is helpful. In Tomcat's world, the proper response to rape allegations are placing the first and foremost emphasis on bringing the perpetrators to justice. I would ensure they would not be able to harm anyone else in the community. I would conductive thorough and neutral investigations to get to the bottom of things.
What I'm saying is that, we can't assume that's necessarily what women want. If UVA did that, women might still feel slighted and mistreated by the administration. How? why?
Because if women are indeed identifying emotionally with the victim, then the degree of emotional support offered by the administration is going to be a big deal on their minds.
Interrogation by the police, investigating objectively and inquiring the victim to repeat details over and over again can be seen as emotionally invasive and jarring, even if procedurally necessary. (frankly I think thats the biggest reason why rolling stone didn't fact check. the author had a chip on her shoulder that rape victims aren't usually believed and therefore didn't want to put jackie through that)
I'm not saying these concerns should override everything. But certainly something to keep in mind as administrators figure out what they can do better on behalf of the victims in the future.
Because if women are indeed identifying emotionally with the victim, then the degree of emotional support offered by the administration is going to be a big deal on their minds.
Surely rape victims need emotional support, but why would we expect a college administration to provide it? Emotional support is typically something one gets from family, friends, and/or qualified mental health professionals. It makes very little sense to expect an institution of higher learning to provide emotional support to its students.
I'm saying that the fraternity issuing a statement saying none of their guys did it doesn't mean that she wasn't raped at all.
This is a bit of a misrepresentation in itself. It's not as though the fraternity's denial is the only piece of evidence that casts doubt on the story. Jackie's friends are on record saying that the story printed in Rolling Stone does not reflect their own statements (in particular, the nature of Jackie's injuries was grossly exaggerated in the story, according to the friends). The man identified in Rolling Stone as having lured her to the party cannot be placed near the campus on the night of the incident. The other people that are reported to have seen her after the party cannot be found. The frat's denial that there was even an event that night stands in addition to all of these other questions. At every single touchpoint between Jackie's story as printed in Rolling Stone and reality, there is quite a lot of friction with reality.
Of course none of this means that she wasn't actually raped that night. What it is is a cautionary tale. Now we'll probably never know what really happened that night, and the reason we'll probably never know is -- let's be very clear here -- because an SJW rushed to press with a totally unverified story that has ruined the credibility of everyone involved because she was far more interested in pushing a narrative about rape culture than she was in integrity, the truth, or even the well-being of the very real person that she used as a pawn to push this narrative.
Because if women are indeed identifying emotionally with the victim, then the degree of emotional support offered by the administration is going to be a big deal on their minds.
Surely rape victims need emotional support, but why would we expect a college administration to provide it? Emotional support is typically something one gets from family, friends, and/or qualified mental health professionals. It makes very little sense to expect an institution of higher learning to provide emotional support to its students.
I'm playing devil's advocate here, putting forth arguments which are not my personal opinions.
But it's clear to me that the victims are looking for some kind of emotional deference from their administrations.
I think you're over generalizing my friends' opinions.
I'm overgeneralizing? Dude, read what you wrote again: "it is important to understand that the opinions of women on this issue are highly visceral. Fear of rape is an extremely powerful and deep-seated force in their psyche. Because of that, emphasis on the objective, the rational, even vigilant dedication to bringing perpetrators to justice is not particularly comforting to them. They are looking for something more comforting." You didn't say "my friends", you said "women". And you're going to continue saying "women" throughout the rest of this post.
But let's take the bull by the horns: would it be any real surprise if on the issue of rape, women were in fact more emotional about it than men? Men by and large do not live in fear of rape. I would say that there any many women who do live with that fear. I'm not going to generalize beyond that, but what I will say is that among the women I've spoken with, they are afraid to walk home alone when it gets dark (not harlem at 2 am dark, but walking back from the school library at 9pm dark)
Considering they're statistically between three and ten times more likely to be sexually assaulted than men, I wouldn't say their concerns are entirely irrational. We might have a conversation about where and how an attack is likely to happen (to wit: probably not by a stranger jumping out of the dark), but that turns out to be a big issue and I'm not sure it's really germane here.
At any rate, I think acknowledging that a sizable block of women see things that way is helpful. In Tomcat's world, the proper response to rape allegations are placing the first and foremost emphasis on bringing the perpetrators to justice. I would ensure they would not be able to harm anyone else in the community. I would conductive thorough and neutral investigations to get to the bottom of things.
I don't see why it has to be a question of "emphasis". With any serious crime, we've got one group of people whose job it is to investigate the facts and bring justice to the perpetrator, and another group of people whose job it is to render aid to the victim.
What I'm saying is that, we can't assume that's necessarily what women want. If UVA did that, women might still feel slighted and mistreated by the administration. How? why?
Because if women are indeed identifying emotionally with the victim, then the degree of emotional support offered by the administration is going to be a big deal on their minds.
If you've read the thread you'll know that I find university administrators putting themselves into the investigative/prosecutorial role is one of the most wrongheaded things about this whole campus rape controversy. They're not police and they're not lawyers (and the ones who are lawyers agree that this is stupid). But setting aside the issue of who does the investigation, I don't see anyone here saying that crime should be investigated because it's "what women want". And a good thing, because that'd be just as patronizing a generalization as saying anything is "what women want". Crime should be investigated because that's what we need to do as a society in order to keep being a society. And like I said above, the investigation is a whole different branch of the social response to a crime than victim support.
Interrogation by the police, investigating objectively and inquiring the victim to repeat details over and over again can be seen as emotionally invasive and jarring, even if procedurally necessary. (frankly I think thats the biggest reason why rolling stone didn't fact check. the author had a chip on her shoulder that rape victims aren't usually believed and therefore didn't want to put jackie through that)
And it's absolutely fine not wanting to put Jackie through it. It's just not fine to do that and still wear the investigative hat. Put on the support hat and advocate for Jackie's needs instead.
I'm not saying these concerns should override everything. But certainly something to keep in mind as administrators figure out what they can do better on behalf of the victims in the future.
I guess I'm really not sure what your point is then. I don't think it's news to anyone that rape is a horrific experience, the prospect of being raped can be very frightening, and these cases need to be handled with a great deal of emotional sensitivity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have read two articles now from men who have suffered lifelong consequences (social, occupational, financial) from an accusation made to their college, even though they were never charged or even had a hearing.
I imagine you have heard the claim that there are no laws in international waters (I don't know if there is any truth to it, that's irrelevant) We both can agree that torturing someone to death is wrong right, heck pure evil. Would it seem odd to you that people are upset that someone tortured someone to death in international waters and the victim's family has no legal means of redress. It didn't somehow become NOT EVIL just because of a loophole that prevents charges from being brought against the perpetrator. The reason why our constitution protects us from a trial without these protections is because it would be profoundly unjust. I understand the motivations behind those who created this system, who view themselves as fighting an evil white male conspiracy etc. and that is its own bag of crazy, I also understand their warped two wrongs make a right version of justice. It may not have yet been deemed unconstitutional by a court but it certainly should be.
There are Title IX claims in some cases, federal in others (when the loses were over $75,000), etc. http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/list-of-lawsuits-against-colleges-and-universities-alleging-due-process-violations-in-adjudicating-sexual-assault/
What I find so perverse is the Title IX law was created to protect people against gender discrimination that would prevent/hinder their participation in higher education and it has been transformed via social justices up is down, war is peace, jackassery into a weapon to discriminate against a gender.
I should be clear here and say that I think those cases are wrong. They were definitely entitled to due process, and the way the schools handled those cases was abysmal.
We need to separate poor implementation from the idea itself being bad here. A lot of the complaints both MRAs AND Feminists have is because state schools have basically been incompetent when it comes to handling these cases. Even the head of RAINN has said (I don't have a reference, heard it on NPR a few months ago) that the laws are in a good place, we just need to improve implementation.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Update.
What really concerns me about this is that the reporter in question is continuing to write for Rolling Stone. After the magazine basically admitting that the author of the story failed on every level to apply even basic journalism, after a scathing report on how badly Rolling Stone screwed up, this woman faces no negative repercussions? Really?
The other question I have is what do we learn from this? It's been turning around in my brain for a while.
In my mind, the moral of this story is that we as a society must learn to take rape seriously, and treat it as the heinous crime it is. That means two things need to start happening:
1. We need to listen and take heed when someone claims to have been raped.
2. We cannot take for granted that a rape claim is true.
That second one might be a bitter truth to swallow, but we've learned what happens when people take for granted that a rape accusation is true without looking into the facts.
If we are to take rape seriously as a crime, that means we must take any rape accusation as what it is: a claim that a heinous crime has been committed, and we must respond accordingly, and that means investigating a case thoroughly from both sides. We cannot ignore the accuser of a crime. We cannot ignore the accused of a crime.
Otherwise, all we are doing is jumping to a conclusion without any basis, and that is the opposite of taking a crime seriously.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The fact that Rolling Stone responded by calling for the resignations of no one is puzzling, although it's only been a day, we'll see what happens as time goes on.
I think there is (or at least should be) a huge difference between a state disciplinary proceeding against an employee and a school disciplinary proceeding against a student.
A job is not a right or an entitlement one holds. An employee can be laid off without warning for budgetary reasons, for example. Generally you have no guarantee that your job will still be there when you wake up tomorrow morning. So while I think it's a good thing that the state provides a formal disciplinary process for employees, I don't see this protection as a requirement. The state can hire and fire whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants (as long as it's not engaging in discrimination or nepotism).
Being accepted to a college is more like a four-year contract. The school is taking your money and time, and agreeing to educate you in return. Yes, you have to meet certain standards as a student (grades, behavior, etc) but as long as you meet those standards you're entitled to your spot in the school. You can't be "laid off" for no reason like an employee can. It should be the school's burden to prove you violated campus policy, otherwise you have the right to be there.
If I go to work tomorrow morning and a senior partner says "I don't like the color of the suit you're wearing; clean out your desk, you're fired," he's within his rights to do that. A college is being payed to provide a service to me; it does not have the right to expel me for arbitrary reasons.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416530/fighting-against-rape-culture-means-never-having-say-youre-sorry-charles-c-w-cooke
UVA is my alma mater. So this story hit close to home. When the story first came out, prior to the retraction, I spoke to a few of my female friends
from UVA for their opinions both prior to and following the retraction. This is my assessment of their opinions:
1. The fact that Jackie lied is almost inconsequential to them.
This was outright shocking to me. Everyone of them had the opinion that *something* awful happened to Jackie, and that the process of evidence gathering was merely another example of their claims being viewed with skepticism by the powers that be. They blame rolling stone. They do not blame Jackie.
2. The enormity of the toll of the false accusations against the males doesn't hit them.
This too shocked the hell out of me. You're talking about the life and reputation of young men who are innocent. You're destroying their futures regardless of guilt. Guess what... not that big a deal.
3. Catching the rapist was NOT the most important thing they were looking for in all this.
Shocking the hell out of me for the third time. Bringing the perpetrator to justice was not the foremost goal in their mind.
4. The most important thing to all of them was, believing the rape victim, ensuring she could get the right support, facilitating discussion, and fostering an environment where they could feel safe. (notwithstanding some minor conflict with #3)
The women I spoke to were all highly educated, intelligent, and NOT raging feminists. My assessment of their opinions is that the story of Jackie strikes at some of their deepest fears. It's not just a fear of being raped, but a fear of going through the system, of actually having to address even objective questions as to the circumstances of the crime.
All of their reactions were highly emotional, and the force of reason and logic was not particularly compelling on any of them. I think for men, it is important to understand that the opinions of women on this issue are highly visceral. Fear of rape is an extremely powerful and deep-seated force in their psyche.
Because of that, emphasis on the objective, the rational, even vigilant dedication to bringing perpetrators to justice is not particularly comforting to them. They are looking for something more comforting. Men will have to understand women a little better on this issue in order to come together and build the kind of responsiveness women are looking for into the administration.
We all do it. When a controversial news story like the Rolling Stone article or the Ferguson shooting breaks, we pick the person involved who seems to most resemble us, put ourselves in their shoes, and defend their/our interests. But what we need to be aware of is that this is wrong. It is a cognitive bias to be resisted rather than indulged. We cannot base democratic policy on such reasoning - not "should not", literally cannot, because democracy by definition involves accounting for the interests of everybody. We can't write a law saying "Let's strip-search all Muslims at airports" because it treats the Muslims as outsiders whose desire not to be strip-searched is irrelevant. An unfortunately large portion of non-Muslim America thinks Muslims are outsiders, but we can't take their policy proposition and still call ourselves a free country. Even though this might mean saying "no" to a 9/11 survivor who honestly thinks they can't feel safe again as long as swarthy men with beards can board airplanes.
There's no future in arguing whether rape or 9/11 is "equivalent" or "worse", but I think we can all agree that they both fall into the category of extremely traumatic experiences. And of course, the democratic principle of accounting for the interests of everybody means addressing these survivors' needs as well. They need help. They emphatically don't need to be vilified as bigots or liars. But - as patronizing as it may sound - oftentimes the help people need is not the help they're asking for. I don't oppose this identity warfare of disregarding outsiders' rights solely because it's undemocratic; I also oppose it because, in the long run, it makes the supposed "insiders" feel less secure. Let's imagine we helped our 9/11 survivor by strip-searching all Muslims. Now they know that there will be no repeat of the attack. But in their mind, Muslims are still outsiders, still enemies, still out to get them - in fact, we've encouraged this line of thinking by agreeing to treat Muslims as such. And that is not conducive to peace of mind. Wouldn't it be better for everybody, Muslims and survivor alike, if the help instead focused on breaking down this identity barrier so that Muslims could be seen not as outsiders but as human beings like any other?
tl;dr: Identity politics are toxic.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Are you saying that the frat has to prove that they're innocent?
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
let me rephrase then: Do they have to prove they are innocent? If yes, what could have they done?
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
If a journalist who has been investigating this story for a long time has no rebuttal to the fraternity saying "yeah, we didn't do it," doesn't that imply something about the quality of the journalist's investigation? Doesn't that imply something about the veracity of the story that was published?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I wouldn't say that I've seen anyone calling "Jackie" a liar. I have seen people calling Erdly a liar, and (in my opinion), rightfully so.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I never said that women are less rational and more emotional. I think you're over generalizing my friends' opinions. But let's take the bull by the horns: would it be any real surprise if on the issue of rape, women were in fact more emotional about it than men? Men by and large do not live in fear of rape. I would say that there any many women who do live with that fear. I'm not going to generalize beyond that, but what I will say is that among the women I've spoken with, they are afraid to walk home alone when it gets dark (not harlem at 2 am dark, but walking back from the school library at 9pm dark)
Rape is for many women, their worst fears realized, and to me it shouldn't be any surprise that they have a different take on it than men do. As one of the women I talked to stated plainly, "women have a prey mentality."
When it comes to potential violence, they see themselves as prey. They ask themselves "what's going to happen to me?" This doesn't necessarily apply to all women, there are always exceptions.
At any rate, I think acknowledging that a sizable block of women see things that way is helpful. In Tomcat's world, the proper response to rape allegations are placing the first and foremost emphasis on bringing the perpetrators to justice. I would ensure they would not be able to harm anyone else in the community. I would conductive thorough and neutral investigations to get to the bottom of things.
What I'm saying is that, we can't assume that's necessarily what women want. If UVA did that, women might still feel slighted and mistreated by the administration. How? why?
Because if women are indeed identifying emotionally with the victim, then the degree of emotional support offered by the administration is going to be a big deal on their minds.
Interrogation by the police, investigating objectively and inquiring the victim to repeat details over and over again can be seen as emotionally invasive and jarring, even if procedurally necessary. (frankly I think thats the biggest reason why rolling stone didn't fact check. the author had a chip on her shoulder that rape victims aren't usually believed and therefore didn't want to put jackie through that)
I'm not saying these concerns should override everything. But certainly something to keep in mind as administrators figure out what they can do better on behalf of the victims in the future.
Surely rape victims need emotional support, but why would we expect a college administration to provide it? Emotional support is typically something one gets from family, friends, and/or qualified mental health professionals. It makes very little sense to expect an institution of higher learning to provide emotional support to its students.
This is a bit of a misrepresentation in itself. It's not as though the fraternity's denial is the only piece of evidence that casts doubt on the story. Jackie's friends are on record saying that the story printed in Rolling Stone does not reflect their own statements (in particular, the nature of Jackie's injuries was grossly exaggerated in the story, according to the friends). The man identified in Rolling Stone as having lured her to the party cannot be placed near the campus on the night of the incident. The other people that are reported to have seen her after the party cannot be found. The frat's denial that there was even an event that night stands in addition to all of these other questions. At every single touchpoint between Jackie's story as printed in Rolling Stone and reality, there is quite a lot of friction with reality.
Of course none of this means that she wasn't actually raped that night. What it is is a cautionary tale. Now we'll probably never know what really happened that night, and the reason we'll probably never know is -- let's be very clear here -- because an SJW rushed to press with a totally unverified story that has ruined the credibility of everyone involved because she was far more interested in pushing a narrative about rape culture than she was in integrity, the truth, or even the well-being of the very real person that she used as a pawn to push this narrative.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I'm playing devil's advocate here, putting forth arguments which are not my personal opinions.
But it's clear to me that the victims are looking for some kind of emotional deference from their administrations.
Considering they're statistically between three and ten times more likely to be sexually assaulted than men, I wouldn't say their concerns are entirely irrational. We might have a conversation about where and how an attack is likely to happen (to wit: probably not by a stranger jumping out of the dark), but that turns out to be a big issue and I'm not sure it's really germane here.
I don't see why it has to be a question of "emphasis". With any serious crime, we've got one group of people whose job it is to investigate the facts and bring justice to the perpetrator, and another group of people whose job it is to render aid to the victim.
If you've read the thread you'll know that I find university administrators putting themselves into the investigative/prosecutorial role is one of the most wrongheaded things about this whole campus rape controversy. They're not police and they're not lawyers (and the ones who are lawyers agree that this is stupid). But setting aside the issue of who does the investigation, I don't see anyone here saying that crime should be investigated because it's "what women want". And a good thing, because that'd be just as patronizing a generalization as saying anything is "what women want". Crime should be investigated because that's what we need to do as a society in order to keep being a society. And like I said above, the investigation is a whole different branch of the social response to a crime than victim support.
And it's absolutely fine not wanting to put Jackie through it. It's just not fine to do that and still wear the investigative hat. Put on the support hat and advocate for Jackie's needs instead.
I guess I'm really not sure what your point is then. I don't think it's news to anyone that rape is a horrific experience, the prospect of being raped can be very frightening, and these cases need to be handled with a great deal of emotional sensitivity.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.