MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on October 04, 2016, 10:19:42 AM
-
Pipes -
I understand that for you it's personal. You know her and believe her. That's certainly your prerogative. But a Facebook post doesn't PROVE anything and acting as if it's some sort of smoking gun is dangerous thinking.
It is also dangerous thinking to ignore all contrary evidence and say that until you see a "smoking gun" that you will believe the accused. There are almost never "smoking guns" in these cases. Sexual assault is a crime that happens behind closed doors between two people (usually). Per Department of Justice study from 2011, less than 5% of reports of sexual assault are false. While this case could certainly be in the less than 5%, don't you think that with multiple sources telling you it occurred, Cottingham getting fired, Buzz being reprimanded, players quietly transferring from the team, the survivor continuing to advocate for other survivors (opening herself up to death threats and public ridicule) and no one producing any evidence the other way, that is fair to say that more likely than not, an assault occurred? No one's asking you to definitively say it happened...no one other than the people there that night could say that...but with the evidence we have, its pretty hard to make a case that something didn't happen.
-
It is also dangerous thinking to ignore all contrary evidence and say that until you see a "smoking gun" that you will believe the accused. There are almost never "smoking guns" in these cases. Sexual assault is a crime that happens behind closed doors between two people (usually). Per Department of Justice study from 2011, less than 5% of reports of sexual assault are false. While this case could certainly be in the less than 5%, don't you think that with multiple sources telling you it occurred, Cottingham getting fired, Buzz being reprimanded, players quietly transferring from the team, the survivor continuing to advocate for other survivors (opening herself up to death threats and public ridicule) and no one producing any evidence the other way, that is fair to say that more likely than not, an assault occurred? No one's asking you to definitively say it happened...no one other than the people there that night could say that...but with the evidence we have, its pretty hard to make a case that something didn't happen.
We definitely know that "something happened". I was under the assumption (please correct me if I'm wrong) that both sides of this he said/she said admitted as much.
When you say less than 5% of sexual assault cases are false, I assume you mean totally fabricated, as in there was no sex that even occurred. But saying that there was sex is not the same thing as saying there was sexual assault or rape.
Cottingham wasn't fired because sexual assault occurred, he was fired because the university had in place outdated procedures on how to handle sexual assault allegations and he was deemed responsible (fairly or not).
But enough - I get that to you and some others due process, presumption of innocence, etc., in this area are outmoded concepts. The whole Duke thing (an actual total fabrication, not even a he said/she said), which led to the firing of a coach, the termination of a sport's program and the indictment and trial of several innocent people was unfortunate but I guess justifiable to some if the goal is to even the score for past injustices. I can see how that concept might be tempting to groups who have been historically under represented or mistreated by our legal system but I still think it's wrong.
-
We definitely know that "something happened". I was under the assumption (please correct me if I'm wrong) that both sides of this he said/she said admitted as much.
When you say less than 5% of sexual assault cases are false, I assume you mean totally fabricated, as in there was no sex that even occurred. But saying that there was sex is not the same thing as saying there was sexual assault or rape.
Cottingham wasn't fired because sexual assault occurred, he was fired because the university had in place outdated procedures on how to handle sexual assault allegations and he was deemed responsible (fairly or not).
But enough - I get that to you and some others due process, presumption of innocence, etc., in this area are outmoded concepts. The whole Duke thing (an actual total fabrication, not even a he said/she said), which led to the firing of a coach, the termination of a sport's program and the indictment and trial of several innocent people was unfortunate but I guess justifiable to some if the goal is to even the score for past injustices. I can see how that concept might be tempting to groups who have been historically under represented or mistreated by our legal system but I still think it's wrong.
You realize you just made an argument that a high school drop out working as a stripper and hooker is as trustworthy as an alum of your university just to focus on one of the rare instances that the innocent were falsely accused.
My thoughts on your argument:
Chicos is still here
(https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/OINg9Dn6Ha3sYAQ4_3ifGA--/dz00ODA7Y2M9NjA0ODAwO2FwcGlkPXNyY2hkZA--/https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M68b57ec7de2cff970d7f7d118f85ab47o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300)
-
Why can't a high school dropout and stripper be considered just as trustworthy as a Marquette alumnus? Is there some study that suggests that high schools dropouts lie more about sexual assault?
-
We definitely know that "something happened". I was under the assumption (please correct me if I'm wrong) that both sides of this he said/she said admitted as much.
When you say less than 5% of sexual assault cases are false, I assume you mean totally fabricated, as in there was no sex that even occurred. But saying that there was sex is not the same thing as saying there was sexual assault or rape.
Cottingham wasn't fired because sexual assault occurred, he was fired because the university had in place outdated procedures on how to handle sexual assault allegations and he was deemed responsible (fairly or not).
But enough - I get that to you and some others due process, presumption of innocence, etc., in this area are outmoded concepts. The whole Duke thing (an actual total fabrication, not even a he said/she said), which led to the firing of a coach, the termination of a sport's program and the indictment and trial of several innocent people was unfortunate but I guess justifiable to some if the goal is to even the score for past injustices. I can see how that concept might be tempting to groups who have been historically under represented or mistreated by our legal system but I still think it's wrong.
That last paragraph is political bulls*t that has nothing to do with what TAMU said.
-
APR to SVU. Not bad for a thread that started about Wojo.
-
Actually, one of Chico's bannings came from his obsessive reaction to this event. I keep in my inbox the attacking message he sent me regarding this incident as a reminder if why I don't want him back.
-
APR to SVU. Not bad for a thread that started about Wojo.
Well you would think "how did we get here" is a simple question
-
Actually, one of Chico's bannings came from his obsessive reaction to this event. I keep in my inbox the attacking message he sent me regarding this incident as a reminder if why I don't want him back.
I'm not trying to be obsessive I just think it's important that we acknowledge it happened as opposed to sticking our heads in the ground.
Sultan, I didn't think I had to go in depth about why the Duke accuser is tremendously less trustworthy but here's some examples
Convicted of murder, grand larceny, dui, theft, endangering a minor, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, attempted murder. She also had claimed that she was gang raped once before by an ex boyfriend, she had also claimed an ex husband threatened to kill her. Both instances her claims were with drawn. By the time Duke came around it should've been a no brainer. I'd say considerably less trustworthy than a bright eyed Marquette freshman.
-
What we do know from that night was that there were conflicting stories and that Marquette employees failed to properly protect and/or seek redress for a potential victim violating both the spirit and the law of a written university policy that itself proved later to be inadequate and erroneous under the law. In my mind the former was totally inexcusable while the latter required careful study and correction but was not necessarily malicious in its original intent.
-
That last paragraph is political bulls*t that has nothing to do with what TAMU said.
Sorry you feel that way - but the point I was trying to make is that there are politics routinely injected into the legal system. And to me that's unfortunate.
-
We definitely know that "something happened". I was under the assumption (please correct me if I'm wrong) that both sides of this he said/she said admitted as much.
When you say less than 5% of sexual assault cases are false, I assume you mean totally fabricated, as in there was no sex that even occurred. But saying that there was sex is not the same thing as saying there was sexual assault or rape.
Cottingham wasn't fired because sexual assault occurred, he was fired because the university had in place outdated procedures on how to handle sexual assault allegations and he was deemed responsible (fairly or not).
But enough - I get that to you and some others due process, presumption of innocence, etc., in this area are outmoded concepts. The whole Duke thing (an actual total fabrication, not even a he said/she said), which led to the firing of a coach, the termination of a sport's program and the indictment and trial of several innocent people was unfortunate but I guess justifiable to some if the goal is to even the score for past injustices. I can see how that concept might be tempting to groups who have been historically under represented or mistreated by our legal system but I still think it's wrong.
It may have been a factor but not the only or principle factor leading to Steve's departure.
-
What we do know from that night was that there were conflicting stories and that Marquette employees failed to properly protect and/or seek redress for a potential victim violating both the spirit and the law of a written university policy that itself proved later to be inadequate and erroneous under the law. In my mind the former was totally inexcusable while the latter required careful study and correction but was not necessarily malicious in its original intent.
Well said.
-
Sorry you feel that way - but the point I was trying to make is that there are politics routinely injected into the legal system. And to me that's unfortunate.
This isn't true.
Politics are very rarely injected into the legal system. Literally millions of cases are processed every year without a hint of politics. Occurrences like the Duke case are exceptionally unusual.
And, really, what's your point? Buzz and his players were subjected to some kind of political witch hunt? What does any of this have to do with the topic?
-
I'm not trying to be obsessive I just think it's important that we acknowledge it happened as opposed to sticking our heads in the ground.
Sultan, I didn't think I had to go in depth about why the Duke accuser is tremendously less trustworthy but here's some examples
Convicted of murder, grand larceny, dui, theft, endangering a minor, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, attempted murder. She also had claimed that she was gang raped once before by an ex boyfriend, she had also claimed an ex husband threatened to kill her. Both instances her claims were with drawn. By the time Duke came around it should've been a no brainer. I'd say considerably less trustworthy than a bright eyed Marquette freshman.
I have no idea how trustworthy she is. I have no idea what happened.
That's not really the point. The point is that she wasn't given the hearing required by the law and that powerful people intervened on the behalf of the accused. That's the only thing that I can speak to.
-
And, really, what's your point? Buzz and his players were subjected to some kind of political witch hunt? What does any of this have to do with the topic?
My point, if you comprehend what Bags, TAMU and I posted, is clear. I'll just hope your feigned ignorance and ridiculous assumption based on it is just you being snarky you.
-
When you say less than 5% of sexual assault cases are false, I assume you mean totally fabricated, as in there was no sex that even occurred. But saying that there was sex is not the same thing as saying there was sexual assault or rape.
Actually no. It includes cases where true consent was obtained but the person than lied about it later. 95% of claims of sexual assault are genuine per this study. The important distinction is that it may not rise to the legal definition of sexual assault. Which in some cases is good, but in a majority of cases it is because the law hasn't caught up to present day. For example, in the state of Texas , it isn't rape if a person has sex with someone who is drunk to the point being unable to move as long as they are still conscious and don't actively resist.
Cottingham wasn't fired because sexual assault occurred, he was fired because the university had in place outdated procedures on how to handle sexual assault allegations and he was deemed responsible (fairly or not).
I wouldn't be so sure that that was all that was involved. But you're right, Cottibgham being fired isn't proof of a sexual assault. But it is one more bread crumb that points towards a sexual assault happening. It's unlikely that if the report has been false that he would have been fired.
The whole Duke thing (an actual total fabrication, not even a he said/she said), which led to the firing of a coach, the termination of a sport's program and the indictment and trial of several innocent people
1. Why do people always point to the one false report and treat it like rule when there are hundreds of cases that show it is the exception.
2. I also wouldn't be so sure that the Duke LAX was a complete fabrication. My current supervisor was a victim's advocate in Raleigh when that case was going on. She was assigned to the young woman in that case and was present for the trial. According to her, the only reason that the players got off free was because in North Carolina, sodomizing someone with a foreign object want considered rape at the time. I asked her about the 30 for 30 and her response was that the only fantastic lies are the ones being told on that film.
I have no idea if she was telling the truth or not. She seemed personally invested so it's possible her lens was colored to an extreme position. I have no idea. But never underestimate the power rich privledged families have when compared to a poor minority stripper. They have more than enough influence and power to create whatever story they want.
But enough - I get that to you and some others due process, presumption of innocence, etc., in this area are outmoded concepts.
Oh I guatentee those involved got due process. It's something I absolutely believe in. It's part of my job to ensure that accused students receive due process. But we are not a judge and jury. We are fans of a basketball program. We operate on the information we have. And despite the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that the university determined that a sexual assault did occur and removed the player from the university, you for some reason choose to believe that an assault did not occur. So either you don't believe they a student was found responsible for assault despite overwhelming evidence that he was. Or you think the university railroaded an innocent player.
-
Sorry you feel that way - but the point I was trying to make is that there are politics routinely injected into the legal system. And to me that's unfortunate.
Absolutely agree. It almost universally favors those who commit sexual assaults and works to silence the victims.
-
My point, if you comprehend what Bags, TAMU and I posted, is clear. I'll just hope your feigned ignorance and ridiculous assumption based on it is just you being snarky you.
Since you won't answer, I'll just assume that there was no point in introducing the Duke lacrosse case to this discussion.
-
You realize you just made an argument that a high school drop out working as a stripper and hooker is as trustworthy as an alum of your university just to focus on one of the rare instances that the innocent were falsely accused.
My thoughts on your argument:
Chicos is still here
(https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/OINg9Dn6Ha3sYAQ4_3ifGA--/dz00ODA7Y2M9NjA0ODAwO2FwcGlkPXNyY2hkZA--/https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M68b57ec7de2cff970d7f7d118f85ab47o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300)
1.I made no such argument
2. Ironically, Chico was on your side here. Not because (like you) he knew and believed the alleged victim, but because he hated the MU coach.
-
Bottom line, there were a series of events that occurred, that when taken individually or within context are relatively isolated from each other. However if one is spending a lot of time reading poetry alone and can't be bothered to remember donor names they might lack the visibility to the context and assume some evil force were at work and work very hard to reign it in. Throw in an oddball that likes to run things his way and you have a recipe for a smoking hole that we found the basketball program in March 2014.
List of incidents:
-Assault (alleged I guess based on this thread)
-Response to the assault
-Off campus player incidents
-Player getting in a scuffle with a non-athletic student
-flexing academic standards for prized recruits
-Several recruits with legal issues that became very visible after we'd been seen to actively be recruiting them
-Recruiting violations by assistants
There are more I either can't remember or can't share....I'm not saying all of that creates a pattern, but a certain clueless president did and unleashed his sweaty ball cap wearing pit bull on the program.
-
Since you won't answer, I'll just assume that there was no point in introducing the Duke lacrosse case to this discussion.
It's already been answered, but here goes (again).
1.Bags asserted posting a claim of sexual assault on Facebook is evidence that the claim is true.
2. TAMU stated that the justice department claims that 95% of all sexual assault claims are true.
I understand in #1 that Bags knows the young woman and he believes her. Regardless, it seems to me that both favor the guilty until proven innocent approach, an approach also taken in the Duke case. I think that approach is dangerous.
-
When this was last being argued about on this forum I posted this extremely well researched article by Emily Yoffe The College Rape Overcorrection on Slate that states:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html
I’ve read through the court filings and investigative reports of a number of these cases, and it’s clear to me that many of the accused are indeed being treated unfairly. Government officials and campus administrators are attempting to legislate the bedroom behavior of students with rules and requirements that would be comic if their effects weren’t frequently so tragic. The legal filings in the cases brought by young men accused of sexual violence often begin like a script for a college sex farce but end with the protagonist finding himself in a Soviet-style show trial. Or, as in the case of Drew Sterrett, punished with no trial at all.
And re: the statistics that have been thrown about here:
But the severe new policies championed by the White House, the Department of Education, and members of Congress are responding to the idea that colleges are in the grips of an epidemic—and the studies suggesting this epidemic don’t hold up to scrutiny. Bad policy is being made on the back of problematic research, and will continue to be unless we bring some healthy skepticism to the hard work of putting a number on the prevalence of campus rape.
By all means read the whole thing - it has the usual caveats that one rape is of course too many and that rape is a serious issue on campuses but that the statistics to back up terrible policies which do NOT have reasonable due process protections for the accused are severely flawed.
IIRC TAMU specifically stated he thought due process for the accused was less important than supporting the accuser. The idea that innocent til proven guilty is a negotiable stance is horrific to me and should be to anyone who has a decent working knowledge of history but that is just my opinion feel free to disagree.
-
When this was last being argued about on this forum I posted this extremely well researched article by Emily Yoffe The College Rape Overcorrection on Slate that states:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html
I’ve read through the court filings and investigative reports of a number of these cases, and it’s clear to me that many of the accused are indeed being treated unfairly. Government officials and campus administrators are attempting to legislate the bedroom behavior of students with rules and requirements that would be comic if their effects weren’t frequently so tragic. The legal filings in the cases brought by young men accused of sexual violence often begin like a script for a college sex farce but end with the protagonist finding himself in a Soviet-style show trial. Or, as in the case of Drew Sterrett, punished with no trial at all.
And re: the statistics that have been thrown about here:
But the severe new policies championed by the White House, the Department of Education, and members of Congress are responding to the idea that colleges are in the grips of an epidemic—and the studies suggesting this epidemic don’t hold up to scrutiny. Bad policy is being made on the back of problematic research, and will continue to be unless we bring some healthy skepticism to the hard work of putting a number on the prevalence of campus rape.
By all means read the whole thing - it has the usual caveats that one rape is of course too many and that rape is a serious issue on campuses but that the statistics to back up terrible policies which do NOT have reasonable due process protections for the accused are severely flawed.
IIRC TAMU specifically stated he thought due process for the accused was less important than supporting the accuser. The idea that innocent til proven guilty is a negotiable stance is horrific to me and should be to anyone who has a decent working knowledge of history but that is just my opinion feel free to disagree.
Bravo.
Outstanding article. An eye opener that everyone should read. Thanks for sharing.
-
List of incidents:
-Assault (alleged I guess based on this thread)
-Response to the assault
-Off campus player incidents
-Player getting in a scuffle with a non-athletic student
-flexing academic standards for prized recruits
-Several recruits with legal issues that became very visible after we'd been seen to actively be recruiting them
-Recruiting violations by assistants
We need wiki pages on all these incidents so we can keep the record straight!
-
We need wiki pages on all these incidents so we can keep the record straight!
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdvla3Bnk11qf68r0o1_500.gif)
-
Deane went to the NIT with O'Nell's holdovers. In year 2, with his very own Aaron Hutchins leading the way, he went to the NCAAs.
O'Neill recruited Hutchins, he just never coached him.
-
When this was last being argued about on this forum I posted this extremely well researched article by Emily Yoffe The College Rape Overcorrection on Slate that states:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html
I’ve read through the court filings and investigative reports of a number of these cases, and it’s clear to me that many of the accused are indeed being treated unfairly. Government officials and campus administrators are attempting to legislate the bedroom behavior of students with rules and requirements that would be comic if their effects weren’t frequently so tragic. The legal filings in the cases brought by young men accused of sexual violence often begin like a script for a college sex farce but end with the protagonist finding himself in a Soviet-style show trial. Or, as in the case of Drew Sterrett, punished with no trial at all.
And re: the statistics that have been thrown about here:
But the severe new policies championed by the White House, the Department of Education, and members of Congress are responding to the idea that colleges are in the grips of an epidemic—and the studies suggesting this epidemic don’t hold up to scrutiny. Bad policy is being made on the back of problematic research, and will continue to be unless we bring some healthy skepticism to the hard work of putting a number on the prevalence of campus rape.
By all means read the whole thing - it has the usual caveats that one rape is of course too many and that rape is a serious issue on campuses but that the statistics to back up terrible policies which do NOT have reasonable due process protections for the accused are severely flawed.
IIRC TAMU specifically stated he thought due process for the accused was less important than supporting the accuser. The idea that innocent til proven guilty is a negotiable stance is horrific to me and should be to anyone who has a decent working knowledge of history but that is just my opinion feel free to disagree.
I've had this article forwarded to me many times. So I have a pretty standardized response by now.
1. Yes. Due process violations happen. They happen in a VAST VAST VAST minority of cases. Also, the vast majority of lawsuits brought by accused students are either settled out of court or are won by the university.
2. It is hilarious that an author who criticizes studies for using too small of sample sizes, tries to use one example of a due process violation to apply to all cases.
3. With the example she gave, it certainly seems like due process was violated, but keep in mind that we have only heard the accused's side of the story.
4. The author criticizes the University of Michigan for moving the individual out of the dorm but that is standard procedure. It is common in university cases and legal cases for some sort of protection order to be placed on the accuser. This is not a violation of due process, it goes through a similar level of scrutiny as a temporary order of protection does.
5. The author claims that the woman was drunk but not incapacitated, something that short of a breathalyzer test is impossible to say.
6. The author uses the term rape and sexual assault interchangeably when they are two separate things. She also uses them conveniently to try to discredit some of the studies. For example, she quotes rape statistics when rape is the most uncommon form of sexual assault in an attempt to make the numbers appear lower. The 1 in 5 and 1 in 4 statistics include sexual assaults and attempted sexual assualts that don't fit the category of rape.
7. The study she uses to claim that non-college students are more likely to be raped than college students only looked at rapes reported to the police. The reporting rate is higher off college campuses than it is on college campuses. Also, rapes that are occur off campus tend to be more violent and forceful whereas colleges have an epidemic of coercive assaults and assaults that use alcohol.
8. The author is also known for another article where she suggested that if women don't want to be raped than they shouldn't get drunk. A classic victim blaming argument.
9. She claims to have read through many court documents and university policies and found rampant issues with due process, but outside of the one case at Michigan she never details what those issues are.
10. She claims that the Dear Colleague Letter lowered the standard of proof for these cases. That is a purposefully misleading statement. A vast majority of universities already used this standard. And this standard is not just for sexual assault cases, it is for all cases. The author attempts to make it seem like sexual assault gets special treatment when it does not. Universities do not have the power to imprison or execute so a lesser standard of proof is warranted and necessary.
11. She claims that the student from Michigan can't make it as a transfer student because of the sexual assault on his record. While his record will show that he was suspended, it would not show what for. If it did, he would be suing them over a FERPA violation.
12. I do agree that it is a problem that while victims' advocates are required, accused advocates are not. That is something that should be fixed
13. The main issue that this author and many have around this topic is that consent is required for sexual activity. They make it out to be this huge ordeal that requires mind reading powers. Really all universities require is that some effort is made to check in with your partner to ensure that the sexual activity is wanted and that you respect the answer that is given. The correct response for someone saying no is "alright." Not "come on" "what about now" or asking over and over again. The old system of "just go for it but stop if they say no" doesn't work for a multitude of reasons. The most egregious one being that it supports the idea that we all have a right to each other's bodies, its on the victim to say no, not on the initiator to ask.
14. The author acts as if sexual assault is some special crime that for some reason universities try to adjudciate when they shouldn't. The reality is that universities hear all crimes that happen on their campuses. If a murder occurs on campus, the university will investigate and hear the case. The author is the one trying to make sexual assault special where it is the only crime that universities can't investigate. Also, the university investigating does not mean that the police aren't also investigating. Every on campus report is forwarded onto the police so they can do their own investigation.
15. I can't speak for other schools, but as someone who does this work every day, I received extensive training on how to investigate and hear cases of sexual assault.
16. She criticizes the 1 in 5 statistic, with good reason, but there are more recent studies that were done more thoroughly that support that number. Well not 1 in 5 exactly but in the 18-22% ballpark.
17. The reality is, while I love our judicial system, it fails us on sexual assault. The most recent numbers suggest that 97% of those who commit sexual assault never spend a day in jail. That means if someone you care about is sexually assaulted, 97 times out of 100 their attacker will never see the inside of a cell. The reason being is that sexual assault is a private crime, that usually happens behind closed doors with no witnesses. How can you convince 12 peers beyond a reasonable doubt that an assault occurred? I don't know how to fix it. But I am thankful every day that universities have a greater ability to address the problem to make our campuses safer.
-
Even by Scoop standards, this is getting pretty extreme...
(http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j87/bearcat94/ThreadDirection-1.jpg)
-
Even by Scoop standards, this is getting pretty extreme...
(http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j87/bearcat94/ThreadDirection-1.jpg)
Ugh, 2 miles? But I have to pee nowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
-
Even by Scoop standards, this is getting pretty extreme...
(http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j87/bearcat94/ThreadDirection-1.jpg)
What kind of bathrooms are those?
-
This is such great stuff. Sure is nice to see a difficult topic discussed intelligently and mostly in a civil tone here on Scoop.
-
I've had this article forwarded to me many times. So I have a pretty standardized response by now.
1. Yes. Due process violations happen. They happen in a VAST VAST VAST minority of cases. Also, the vast majority of lawsuits brought by accused students are either settled out of court or are won by the university.
2. It is hilarious that an author who criticizes studies for using too small of sample sizes, tries to use one example of a due process violation to apply to all cases.
3. With the example she gave, it certainly seems like due process was violated, but keep in mind that we have only heard the accused's side of the story.
4. The author criticizes the University of Michigan for moving the individual out of the dorm but that is standard procedure. It is common in university cases and legal cases for some sort of protection order to be placed on the accuser. This is not a violation of due process, it goes through a similar level of scrutiny as a temporary order of protection does.
5. The author claims that the woman was drunk but not incapacitated, something that short of a breathalyzer test is impossible to say.
6. The author uses the term rape and sexual assault interchangeably when they are two separate things. She also uses them conveniently to try to discredit some of the studies. For example, she quotes rape statistics when rape is the most uncommon form of sexual assault in an attempt to make the numbers appear lower. The 1 in 5 and 1 in 4 statistics include sexual assaults and attempted sexual assualts that don't fit the category of rape.
7. The study she uses to claim that non-college students are more likely to be raped than college students only looked at rapes reported to the police. The reporting rate is higher off college campuses than it is on college campuses. Also, rapes that are occur off campus tend to be more violent and forceful whereas colleges have an epidemic of coercive assaults and assaults that use alcohol.
8. The author is also known for another article where she suggested that if women don't want to be raped than they shouldn't get drunk. A classic victim blaming argument.
9. She claims to have read through many court documents and university policies and found rampant issues with due process, but outside of the one case at Michigan she never details what those issues are.
10. She claims that the Dear Colleague Letter lowered the standard of proof for these cases. That is a purposefully misleading statement. A vast majority of universities already used this standard. And this standard is not just for sexual assault cases, it is for all cases. The author attempts to make it seem like sexual assault gets special treatment when it does not. Universities do not have the power to imprison or execute so a lesser standard of proof is warranted and necessary.
11. She claims that the student from Michigan can't make it as a transfer student because of the sexual assault on his record. While his record will show that he was suspended, it would not show what for. If it did, he would be suing them over a FERPA violation.
12. I do agree that it is a problem that while victims' advocates are required, accused advocates are not. That is something that should be fixed
13. The main issue that this author and many have around this topic is that consent is required for sexual activity. They make it out to be this huge ordeal that requires mind reading powers. Really all universities require is that some effort is made to check in with your partner to ensure that the sexual activity is wanted and that you respect the answer that is given. The correct response for someone saying no is "alright." Not "come on" "what about now" or asking over and over again. The old system of "just go for it but stop if they say no" doesn't work for a multitude of reasons. The most egregious one being that it supports the idea that we all have a right to each other's bodies, its on the victim to say no, not on the initiator to ask.
14. The author acts as if sexual assault is some special crime that for some reason universities try to adjudciate when they shouldn't. The reality is that universities hear all crimes that happen on their campuses. If a murder occurs on campus, the university will investigate and hear the case. The author is the one trying to make sexual assault special where it is the only crime that universities can't investigate. Also, the university investigating does not mean that the police aren't also investigating. Every on campus report is forwarded onto the police so they can do their own investigation.
15. I can't speak for other schools, but as someone who does this work every day, I received extensive training on how to investigate and hear cases of sexual assault.
16. She criticizes the 1 in 5 statistic, with good reason, but there are more recent studies that were done more thoroughly that support that number. Well not 1 in 5 exactly but in the 18-22% ballpark.
17. The reality is, while I love our judicial system, it fails us on sexual assault. The most recent numbers suggest that 97% of those who commit sexual assault never spend a day in jail. That means if someone you care about is sexually assaulted, 97 times out of 100 their attacker will never see the inside of a cell. The reason being is that sexual assault is a private crime, that usually happens behind closed doors with no witnesses. How can you convince 12 peers beyond a reasonable doubt that an assault occurred? I don't know how to fix it. But I am thankful every day that universities have a greater ability to address the problem to make our campuses safer.
Maybe it's time to go back to all male and female institutions and this "crisis" would be totally avoidable. From where I sit it seems the Universities are not interested in the truth, just covering their backside against any Title IX violations.
-
Serious question, TAMU: What exactly is considered "sexual assault" in this context?
With some of the definitons I have heard, 1 in 5 seems awfully low.
-
Maybe it's time to go back to all male and female institutions and this "crisis" would be totally avoidable. From where I sit it seems the Universities are not interested in the truth, just covering their backside against any Title IX violations.
Uh...sure.
-
Uh...sure.
Any better ideas?
-
Any better ideas?
Yeah. Institutions need to devote resources to adequately training Title IX officers and conducting Title IX investigations. Because even single sex schools have Title IX issues.
-
That's what happens when you still had a 'must be a Jebbie' clause. Pilarz was a disaster. Heard numerous stories after he was gone.
As to Cottinghan, everything mentioned here was a factor. There were also other screw ups not mentioned. I liked Steve a great deal. But his departure was more than simply him being a 'fall guy'.
A "fall guy" is often tinged, not innocent, but not the most guilty. Clearly, he took a public bullet for the university and was not without blame. Many others took it quietly, under the radar, with severance, with a nice landing, or nicely reassigned.
Interesting that Buzz got Cottingham his next and current job.
As for Pilarz, there were many stories when he was here. Those were complex times.
-
Buzz and a member of the staff got involved in different ways based on everything I was told.
And that staff member and the accused went "away"...
-
I've had this article forwarded to me many times. So I have a pretty standardized response by now.
1. Yes. Due process violations happen. They happen in a VAST VAST VAST minority of cases. Also, the vast majority of lawsuits brought by accused students are either settled out of court or are won by the university.
2. It is hilarious that an author who criticizes studies for using too small of sample sizes, tries to use one example of a due process violation to apply to all cases.
3. With the example she gave, it certainly seems like due process was violated, but keep in mind that we have only heard the accused's side of the story.
4. The author criticizes the University of Michigan for moving the individual out of the dorm but that is standard procedure. It is common in university cases and legal cases for some sort of protection order to be placed on the accuser. This is not a violation of due process, it goes through a similar level of scrutiny as a temporary order of protection does.
5. The author claims that the woman was drunk but not incapacitated, something that short of a breathalyzer test is impossible to say.
6. The author uses the term rape and sexual assault interchangeably when they are two separate things. She also uses them conveniently to try to discredit some of the studies. For example, she quotes rape statistics when rape is the most uncommon form of sexual assault in an attempt to make the numbers appear lower. The 1 in 5 and 1 in 4 statistics include sexual assaults and attempted sexual assualts that don't fit the category of rape.
7. The study she uses to claim that non-college students are more likely to be raped than college students only looked at rapes reported to the police. The reporting rate is higher off college campuses than it is on college campuses. Also, rapes that are occur off campus tend to be more violent and forceful whereas colleges have an epidemic of coercive assaults and assaults that use alcohol.
8. The author is also known for another article where she suggested that if women don't want to be raped than they shouldn't get drunk. A classic victim blaming argument.
9. She claims to have read through many court documents and university policies and found rampant issues with due process, but outside of the one case at Michigan she never details what those issues are.
10. She claims that the Dear Colleague Letter lowered the standard of proof for these cases. That is a purposefully misleading statement. A vast majority of universities already used this standard. And this standard is not just for sexual assault cases, it is for all cases. The author attempts to make it seem like sexual assault gets special treatment when it does not. Universities do not have the power to imprison or execute so a lesser standard of proof is warranted and necessary.
11. She claims that the student from Michigan can't make it as a transfer student because of the sexual assault on his record. While his record will show that he was suspended, it would not show what for. If it did, he would be suing them over a FERPA violation.
12. I do agree that it is a problem that while victims' advocates are required, accused advocates are not. That is something that should be fixed
13. The main issue that this author and many have around this topic is that consent is required for sexual activity. They make it out to be this huge ordeal that requires mind reading powers. Really all universities require is that some effort is made to check in with your partner to ensure that the sexual activity is wanted and that you respect the answer that is given. The correct response for someone saying no is "alright." Not "come on" "what about now" or asking over and over again. The old system of "just go for it but stop if they say no" doesn't work for a multitude of reasons. The most egregious one being that it supports the idea that we all have a right to each other's bodies, its on the victim to say no, not on the initiator to ask.
14. The author acts as if sexual assault is some special crime that for some reason universities try to adjudciate when they shouldn't. The reality is that universities hear all crimes that happen on their campuses. If a murder occurs on campus, the university will investigate and hear the case. The author is the one trying to make sexual assault special where it is the only crime that universities can't investigate. Also, the university investigating does not mean that the police aren't also investigating. Every on campus report is forwarded onto the police so they can do their own investigation.
15. I can't speak for other schools, but as someone who does this work every day, I received extensive training on how to investigate and hear cases of sexual assault.
16. She criticizes the 1 in 5 statistic, with good reason, but there are more recent studies that were done more thoroughly that support that number. Well not 1 in 5 exactly but in the 18-22% ballpark.
17. The reality is, while I love our judicial system, it fails us on sexual assault. The most recent numbers suggest that 97% of those who commit sexual assault never spend a day in jail. That means if someone you care about is sexually assaulted, 97 times out of 100 their attacker will never see the inside of a cell. The reason being is that sexual assault is a private crime, that usually happens behind closed doors with no witnesses. How can you convince 12 peers beyond a reasonable doubt that an assault occurred? I don't know how to fix it. But I am thankful every day that universities have a greater ability to address the problem to make our campuses safer.
You believe that a woman who goes on a date, willingly consumes alcohol on that date and willingly has sex with her date but later regrets her behavior has been raped. IMO (and I absolutely admit it's an opinion) that's a fringe view, although if you are to be believed it's mainstream on campuses. I wouldn't expect someone with those preconceptions to think much of an article that looks at the problem from a different perspective.
-
You believe that a woman who goes on a date, willingly consumes alcohol on that date and willingly has sex with her date but later regrets her behavior has been raped. IMO (and I absolutely admit it's an opinion) that's a fringe view, although if you are to be believed it's mainstream on campuses. I wouldn't expect someone with those preconceptions to think much of an article that looks at the problem from a different perspective.
I bet most of you don't know that in Wisconsin, alcohol is considered a date rape drug. So right or wrong, if you get a girl liquored up and have sex with her, you are taking your chances. It's something they cover during freshman orientation at MU.
-
I bet most of you don't know that in Wisconsin, alcohol is considered a date rape drug. So right or wrong, if you get a girl liquored up and have sex with her, you are taking your chances. It's something they cover during freshman orientation at MU.
Whoa. Really?
I came here to ask how this thread is not locked yet... and instead unlearned something!
But seriously this is WAAAAY off track.
-
You believe that a woman who goes on a date, willingly consumes alcohol on that date and willingly has sex with her date but later regrets her behavior has been raped. IMO (and I absolutely admit it's an opinion) that's a fringe view, although if you are to be believed it's mainstream on campuses. I wouldn't expect someone with those preconceptions to think much of an article that looks at the problem from a different perspective.
TAMU wrote nothing of the sort.
-
Any better ideas?
Chastity belts, hey?
-
Maybe it's time to go back to all male and female institutions and this "crisis" would be totally avoidable. From where I sit it seems the Universities are not interested in the truth, just covering their backside against any Title IX violations.
I'm not sure why crisis is in "". While theoretically separating men and women into different universities would reduce instances of sexual violence, it goes against one of the main purposes of a college education, preparing people for the real world. Men and women should be able to interact with each other without fear of violence.
Also, sexual assault is not just a male on female crime. It can happen between two men, two women, or a woman can assault a man.
Won't argue that many universities are concerned with covering their ass. I would say that usually helps the accused rather than the accuser. A lot of education that would be great for students gets put on the wayside because we have to check the boxes given to us by Title IX. Also, there are a lot more restrictions on due process for the accused than the accuser. Lawsuits from the accused are a lot more expensive than lawsuits from the accuser.
-
Serious question, TAMU: What exactly is considered "sexual assault" in this context?
With some of the definitons I have heard, 1 in 5 seems awfully low.
Depends on the survey. The one I was referring to used the definition of "nonconsensual sexual contact by physical force, threats of physical force, or incapacitation." Sexual contact would include penetration, fondling, kissing, etc. The survey determined that 23.1% of students experienced some form of nonconsensual sexual contact. 10.8% of students experienced non-consensual penetration specifically.
-
I bet most of you don't know that in Wisconsin, alcohol is considered a date rape drug. So right or wrong, if you get a girl liquored up and have sex with her, you are taking your chances. It's something they cover during freshman orientation at MU.
Didn't know and thank you.
Had a conversation the other night with other parents of boys about the difficulty of raising them into respectable/good/chivalrous men and specifically if it's more difficult today versus 40 years ago. There wasn't a conclusion but we all thought our boys would be aware of their surroundings and impacts than their predecessors.
-
You believe that a woman who goes on a date, willingly consumes alcohol on that date and willingly has sex with her date but later regrets her behavior has been raped. IMO (and I absolutely admit it's an opinion) that's a fringe view, although if you are to be believed it's mainstream on campuses. I wouldn't expect someone with those preconceptions to think much of an article that looks at the problem from a different perspective.
Couple of problems with this statement.
First, why did you bring up going on a date and "willingly consuming alcohol"? I'm sure this wasn't your intent, but it seems like you are implying that going on a date and consuming alcohol means that sex is owed or expected. Nothing about going on a date or drinking grants consent to someone else for sex.
Second, I never said anything of the sort. Regret has nothing to do with anything. If a person has sex with someone else while they are incapacitated from alcohol than it is rape. A person can no longer consent to sex after consuming a certain amount of alcohol. Even if the drunk person is throwing themselves at someone, that person has a legal responsibility (in some states) and university responsibility (at all universities that accept federal funding) to not engage in any sort of sexual activity with the incapacitated individual.
Third, while most assaults are male on female, I feel it is necessary to mention that assaults can occur between two men, two women, or a woman on a man.
Fourth, this is not an opinion. It is a federal regulation. In some states it is law. In the near future, it will hopefully be law in all states. A lot of progress has been made the last few years.
As Chick said, alcohol is considered a date rape drug in Wisconsin. I know in the past it was considered normal and acceptable for men and women to get good and liquored up and then have sex. Those days are fortunately ending. To be clear, drunk sex can still happen. You can go out with a friend and have a few drinks, but if the person is to the point of intoxication, then no sex can occur.
-
I'm amazed by those stats TAMU. Let's break this down for a moment. ONLY 23.1% have been kissed or grabbed in the butt against their will but fully 10.8% were 'raped' in the way many of us would define it. I'm not doubting you but that seems really hard to believe.
I'm not excusing it but I'd think most college girls have experienced some form of unwanted 'assault' where her male friends basically grabbed the jerk guy and dragged him toward the bar door maybe with a shot or two to the jaw on the way. I'm not saying that's not inappropriate behavior but I'd also say those women probably aren't impacted for life. Sure they'll remember the incident but almost all will move on pretty easily. On the other hand the stats would suggest that 40% of that original group had something horribly traumatic happen? Again, wow.
-
Superbar
-
TAMU wrote nothing of the sort.
TAMU has expressed this opinion in other discussions.
-
TAMU has expressed this opinion in other discussions.
But Lenny, he's really not discussing an opinion but citing statistics and the law. And there's no doubt that's moved considerably in one direction over the last several years.
-
I'm amazed by those stats TAMU. Let's break this down for a moment. ONLY 23.1% have been kissed or grabbed in the butt against their will but fully 10.8% were 'raped' in the way many of us would define it. I'm not doubting you but that seems really hard to believe.
I'm not excusing it but I'd think most college girls have experienced some form of unwanted 'assault' where her male friends basically grabbed the jerk guy and dragged him toward the bar door maybe with a shot or two to the jaw on the way. I'm not saying that's not inappropriate behavior but I'd also say those women probably aren't impacted for life. Sure they'll remember the incident but almost all will move on pretty easily. On the other hand the stats would suggest that 40% of that original group had something horribly traumatic happen? Again, wow.
I'm not doubting that some survey came to the conclusions TAMU said it did but there had to be something wrong with the survey takers - the numbers defy logic.
-
Superbar
+1
-
But Lenny, he's really not discussing an opinion but citing statistics and the law. And there's no doubt that's moved considerably in one direction over the last several years.
Glow - TAMU and I have had discussions about what we both think constitutes sexual assault and rape. My recollection is that some of the circumstances he described (two people dating, party to what's likely over the legal limit for both and have consensual sex) as rape or sexual assault don't meet fair standards. I'm unaware that state or federal laws would agree with him but I'm also aware were moving in that direction. I'll even stipulate we NEEDED to move in that direction. Just not as far as he would take us (or if I'm just unaware how far it already has).
-
TAMU has expressed this opinion in other discussions.
I apologize if that's how it came off. My intent was to say that once a person is incapacitated (think too drunk to drive a car) they are no longer able to consent to sex.
-
I'm not doubting that some survey came to the conclusions TAMU said it did but there had to be something wrong with the survey takers - the numbers defy logic.
Agreed, I'm shocked they are that low. Maybe those are high school numbers, I have to imagine they are higher in college.
-
I'm amazed by those stats TAMU. Let's break this down for a moment. ONLY 23.1% have been kissed or grabbed in the butt against their will but fully 10.8% were 'raped' in the way many of us would define it. I'm not doubting you but that seems really hard to believe.
I'm not excusing it but I'd think most college girls have experienced some form of unwanted 'assault' where her male friends basically grabbed the jerk guy and dragged him toward the bar door maybe with a shot or two to the jaw on the way. I'm not saying that's not inappropriate behavior but I'd also say those women probably aren't impacted for life. Sure they'll remember the incident but almost all will move on pretty easily. On the other hand the stats would suggest that 40% of that original group had something horribly traumatic happen? Again, wow.
Some of what your talking about is what leads me to believe that the 23.1% is actually much lower than the actual number. Many of these more "minor" incidents of sexual assault wouldn't even register for many and would likely go unreported.
Just to clarify my terms some more, nonconsensual penetration doesn't just refer to vaginally or anal presentation. It also includes nonconsensual oral sex (either receiving or giving without consent) or digital penetration.
Also, I can't speak for other universities, but I doubt any university would treat a case of nonconsensual fondling the same as nonconsensual penetration. You are right to say that they two acts have different levels of impact therefore they are treated with different severity.
-
Legally speaking, what if both parties are at the "too drunk to drive" point?
And FWIW, in Wisconsin, that's 0.08 BAC. If you're drunk at 0.08 (that's less than 1 beer per hour) then you have no tolerance whatsoever. Most people I know are fully lucid at that level.
-
Legally speaking, what if both parties are at the "too drunk to drive" point?
Depends on the state. For universities, they are charged to look for the "aggressor" in the situation. Who was the one pushing things along? Who was the one initiating? The reasoning behind this is that being drunk doesn't excuse you from doing something illegal but it does take away your ability to consent. To give an allegory, a person is at fault if they choose to drive while drunk. However, a person who is hit by a car while drunk is not responsible for the accident just because they were drunk.
It is theoretically possible for two people to assault each other. I have never seen a case so I can't really speak to how it plays out.
I did have a case once where a young woman brought a charge against a male student when both were drunk. Through the process of investigation it became apparent that she actually was the one who took advantage of him and he ended up bringing counter charges. She was found responsible and he was found not responsible.
-
I apologize if that's how it came off. My intent was to say that once a person is incapacitated (think too drunk to drive a car) they are no longer able to consent to sex.
TAMU - you're a really good guy and also a smart guy. I will champion any efforts that educate young men to be more respectful of women. Back in the dark ages when I was a student at MU I was appalled by the attitudes some of my classmates had towards the young women on our campus. I've raised two sons to feel the same way and two daughters to be circumspect about guys who don't.
But I do not (and never will) believe that a man who has consensual sex with a women who may be over .08 blood alcohol limit is by definition a rapist. By your definition it wouldn't surprise me if 60% or even 70% of women who go to college for 4 years have been "rape" victims. But I think your definition defies reason and I think the vast % of the women you consider victims would agree.
-
Agreed, I'm shocked they are that low. Maybe those are high school numbers, I have to imagine they are higher in college.
Way low for one, way high for another.
-
TAMU - you're a really good guy and also a smart guy. I will champion any efforts that educate young men to be more respectful of women. Back in the dark ages when I was a student at MU I was appalled by the attitudes some of my classmates had towards the young women on our campus. I've raised two sons to feel the same way and two daughters to be circumspect about guys who don't.
But I do not (and never will) believe that a man who has consensual sex with a women who may be over .08 blood alcohol limit is by definition a rapist. By your definition it wouldn't surprise me if 60% or even 70% of women who go to college for 4 years have been "rape" victims. But I think your definition defies reason and I think the vast % of the women you consider victims would agree.
I'm in total agreement with you Lenny. What I worry about is a legal or Title IX standard that defines it as such. I'm not sure TAMU is necessarily advocating for anything but if he is advocating for that threshold I would vehemently disagree with him. I am also convinced that the establishment of any such ridiculously low threshold would be roundly criticized by the vast majority of Americans if they understood the situation. On the contrary, I think we'd all agree that there is an alcohol induced point where consent cannot be granted.
-
I'm in total agreement with you Lenny. What I worry about is a legal or Title IX standard that defines it as such. I'm not sure TAMU is necessarily advocating for anything but if he is advocating for that threshold I would vehemently disagree with him. I am also convinced that the establishment of any such ridiculously low threshold would be roundly criticized by the vast majority of Americans if they understood the situation. On the contrary, I think we'd all agree that there is an alcohol induced point where consent cannot be granted.
+1 on all counts.
-
And FWIW, in Wisconsin, that's 0.08 BAC. If you're drunk at 0.08 (that's less than 1 beer per hour) then you have no tolerance whatsoever. Most people I know are fully lucid at that level.
Where are you getting your "less than 1 beer per hour" stat? I'll be honest, I'm not an expert in this area. But I used a BAC calculator and it would take me 6 beers in an hour to reach a .08.
-
I'm in total agreement with you Lenny. What I worry about is a legal or Title IX standard that defines it as such. I'm not sure TAMU is necessarily advocating for anything but if he is advocating for that threshold I would vehemently disagree with him. I am also convinced that the establishment of any such ridiculously low threshold would be roundly criticized by the vast majority of Americans if they understood the situation. On the contrary, I think we'd all agree that there is an alcohol induced point where consent cannot be granted.
I appreciate the thoughts Glow but I fully support the idea of the .08 standard. I can produce dozens of studies that show that decision making is severely impaired at a BAC of .08. Predators know this and use this to their advantage. Where I have more issue is how you can actually adjudicate this short of having students breathalyze each other before sex? Right now we train investigators to ask if those present could recall how many drinks a person had or what behavior the person was exhibiting. Because people have different tolerances there will be cases where someone who wasn't at .08 would be considered to be over the line while there are other times where someone who was at .08 would be considered to be under the line. However, its important to note here that .08 isn't some magical number that causes victims to stop being ok with having sex. There will be times when someone has sex at .10 BAC and wakes up the next morning and says "what a great hook up." There will be times when someone has sex at .06 BAC and will wake up and feel like they were taken advantage of. That person will go through the same emotional, psychological, and physical trauma as if they were past the "legal point of sexual assault." So while there has to be some theoretical line that divides drunk sex and sexual assault, its better to just stay as far away from it as possible because you could still put your partner through an awful trauma.
You agree that there is a certain point that someone is too drunk to consent, where would you put it? Since is .08 universally recognized as impaired enough to keep someone from safely driving or legitimately signing a contract, why would it not be too much for someone to consent to sex?
-
But I do not (and never will) believe that a man who has consensual sex with a women who may be over .08 blood alcohol limit is by definition a rapist. By your definition it wouldn't surprise me if 60% or even 70% of women who go to college for 4 years have been "rape" victims. But I think your definition defies reason and I think the vast % of the women you consider victims would agree.
Well considering that only only about 80% of college students drink, and only about 50% of those (so 40% total) binge drink, and the numbers are lower for women than they are for men, I would find it highly unlikely that 60-70% of women are victims of drunk sexual assaults. I know I've said that its an issue, but I doubt that 133% of the women who binge drink are getting sexually assaulted. This is part of the problem. We try to paint this picture that college is just one drunken mess from orientation to graduation and if sex happens, that's just part of college. I drank with the best of them at Marquette, I would say I was on the higher end of alcohol consumption, but my friends and I still had enough control to not engage in sex with someone who was incapacitated.
I think there is an underestimation of how drunk someone is at .08. Again, it is illegal to drive a car at this point because of how much you are physically impacted by alcohol. Again, I'm not an expert on BAC, but using a BAC calculator it would take my 210 lb self 6 beers in an hour to get to .08 BAC. My 140 lb fiance' would need four beers in an hour.
-
Not sure where the line is TAMU but it ain't there. Have a great evening.
-
Not sure where the line is TAMU but it ain't there. Have a great evening.
This is the problem. After .08, the legal level of incapacitation, there are no other markers until the person is passed out. I think everyone can agree that if the person is passed out than sex is off the table. But I would think that most would agree that there is a point before that where someone is taking advantage of someone else. I could hear an argument for another standard, but I don't know what other standard there would be between .08 and passed out. It especially gets grey because depending on your tolerance, you could pass out. To me, .08 makes sense because it is a standard. Too drunk to drive a car, too drunk to be held to a contract, and too drunk to consent to sex.
-
You are doing your BAC calculation incorrectly. BC77 is accurate.
-
You are doing your BAC calculation incorrectly. BC77 is accurate.
Like I said, I'm not an expert. I used an online BAC calculator that I found. According to BC77 I would only need to drink one beer in an hour to reach a .08 BAC? I'm sorry that doesn't seem correct. Driving after one beer is a DUI? I would appreciate if you could point me to a place where I can get a better idea of BAC.
-
This is the problem. After .08, the legal level of incapacitation, there are no other markers until the person is passed out. I think everyone can agree that if the person is passed out than sex is off the table. But I would think that most would agree that there is a point before that where someone is taking advantage of someone else. I could hear an argument for another standard, but I don't know what other standard there would be between .08 and passed out. It especially gets grey because depending on your tolerance, you could pass out. To me, .08 makes sense because it is a standard. Too drunk to drive a car, too drunk to be held to a contract, and too drunk to consent to sex.
I get where you are coming from and I think there is something to be said for all individuals (regardless of gender) having to really think about whether they and the other person(s) are in the right frame of mind to consent. Bottom line, college students should be really really really sure sex is a good idea before engaging in it.
However, the threshold you've espoused is very problematic. First, taking the drunk driving analogy (perhaps too far), if two drunk drivers in separate cars get in a car accident with just the two of them.....both are going to jail, regardless of fault. Additionally, at least the first time you are caught drunk driving it is an ordinance violation, not a felony. So by your standard, if both parties are over the 0.08 BAC they should both be charged as neither party could consent.
Bottom line, I don't think we can apply some level of intoxication standard or calculated metric. Even with a line like 0.08 there's timing at work....you could be below the limit during the act but because you took a drink right before or during would be over the limit by the end or just after, does that count? How do you determine what the BAC was at the time that consent was asked for and received? I think this is always going to be a judgement call and we need to treat it as such from a legal perspective.
-
Like I said, I'm not an expert. I used an online BAC calculator that I found. According to BC77 I would only need to drink one beer in an hour to reach a .08 BAC? I'm sorry that doesn't seem correct. Driving after one beer is a DUI? I would appreciate if you could point me to a place where I can get a better idea of BAC.
I have always heard that a good rule of thumb is to limit yourself to one beer per hour to avoid going over .08. And I am sure it was a very generic, conservative rule - covering 100-pound women as well as 300-pound guys. Everyone needs to know their own limits. There are a lot of factors involved in how quickly you get hammered besides the rate at which you imbibe - weight, gender, carbonation, the amount of food in your stomach....
-
Like I said, I'm not an expert. I used an online BAC calculator that I found. According to BC77 I would only need to drink one beer in an hour to reach a .08 BAC? I'm sorry that doesn't seem correct. Driving after one beer is a DUI? I would appreciate if you could point me to a place where I can get a better idea of BAC.
The body can absorb the equivalent of one drink per hour. A drink is defined as a 1.5oz shot of 40 proof liquor or a 12oz beer at 5% ABV. For context Miller Lite has an ABV of 4.2%, High Life 4.8% and Blue Moon is 5.4%
So lets assume you are a man who is 200lbs. you would be over the legal limit if you consume 3 Blue Moons in an hour, likely over if you have 3 High Lifes in an hour and just under if you have 3 Miller Lites in an hour. Here's where the BAC bites you, if you have 5 Miller Lites in 2 hours, you're effectively over the legal limit as a 200lb man because you can only eliminate a single beer per hour.
Same scenario, if you are a 140 lb woman it would only take 2 Blue Moons to put you over the limit(it would take 3 High Life), especially in Wisconsin and at college is almost nothing compared to a typical night out drinking.
(http://www.notredamecollege.edu/sites/default/fileuploads/blood-alcohol-chart.gif)
Additionally, tolerance is how you mentally "resist" or "adapt" to effects of alcholol, but it doesn't impact the BAC of the individual. If you had twins, one who drank all the time and one who never drank, and gave both of them 3 Blue Moons, they would both be around a BAC of .08 but the impact to them mentally (coordination, judgement, etc) would be vastly different.
-
Well considering that only only about 80% of college students drink, and only about 50% of those (so 40% total) binge drink, and the numbers are lower for women than they are for men, I would find it highly unlikely that 60-70% of women are victims of drunk sexual assaults. I know I've said that its an issue, but I doubt that 133% of the women who binge drink are getting sexually assaulted. This is part of the problem. We try to paint this picture that college is just one drunken mess from orientation to graduation and if sex happens, that's just part of college. I drank with the best of them at Marquette, I would say I was on the higher end of alcohol consumption, but my friends and I still had enough control to not engage in sex with someone who was incapacitated.
I think there is an underestimation of how drunk someone is at .08. Again, it is illegal to drive a car at this point because of how much you are physically impacted by alcohol. Again, I'm not an expert on BAC, but using a BAC calculator it would take my 210 lb self 6 beers in an hour to get to .08 BAC. My 140 lb fiance' would need four beers in an hour.
Are you really suggesting that for a college woman (or man) to occasionally (or even regularly) hit .08 they have to be binge drinkers? I think there's something wrong with your calculations.
-
The body can absorb the equivalent of one drink per hour. A drink is defined as a 1.5oz shot of 40 proof liquor or a 12oz beer at 5% ABV. For context Miller Lite has an ABV of 4.2%, High Life 4.8% and Blue Moon is 5.4%
So lets assume you are a man who is 200lbs. you would be over the legal limit if you consume 3 Blue Moons in an hour, likely over if you have 3 High Lifes in an hour and just under if you have 3 Miller Lites in an hour. Here's where the BAC bites you, if you have 5 Miller Lites in 2 hours, you're effectively over the legal limit as a 200lb man because you can only eliminate a single beer per hour.
Same scenario, if you are a 140 lb woman it would only take 2 Blue Moons to put you over the limit(it would take 3 High Life), especially in Wisconsin and at college is almost nothing compared to a typical night out drinking.
(http://www.notredamecollege.edu/sites/default/fileuploads/blood-alcohol-chart.gif)
Additionally, tolerance is how you mentally "resist" or "adapt" to effects of alcholol, but it doesn't impact the BAC of the individual. If you had twins, one who drank all the time and one who never drank, and gave both of them 3 Blue Moons, they would both be around a BAC of .08 but the impact to them mentally (coordination, judgement, etc) would be vastly different.
So in other words, the best way for a guy to protect himself is to have his date hop on the scale at the beginning of the night, make note of the time, and buy drinks for her accordingly.
-
So in other words, the best way for a guy to protect himself is to have his date hop on the scale at the beginning of the night, make note of the time, and buy drinks for her accordingly.
They should make an app for that.....or add it as a function in Tinder or something.
-
The body can absorb the equivalent of one drink per hour. A drink is defined as a 1.5oz shot of 40 proof liquor or a 12oz beer at 5% ABV. For context Miller Lite has an ABV of 4.2%, High Life 4.8% and Blue Moon is 5.4%
So lets assume you are a man who is 200lbs. you would be over the legal limit if you consume 3 Blue Moons in an hour, likely over if you have 3 High Lifes in an hour and just under if you have 3 Miller Lites in an hour. Here's where the BAC bites you, if you have 5 Miller Lites in 2 hours, you're effectively over the legal limit as a 200lb man because you can only eliminate a single beer per hour.
Same scenario, if you are a 140 lb woman it would only take 2 Blue Moons to put you over the limit(it would take 3 High Life), especially in Wisconsin and at college is almost nothing compared to a typical night out drinking.
(http://www.notredamecollege.edu/sites/default/fileuploads/blood-alcohol-chart.gif)
Additionally, tolerance is how you mentally "resist" or "adapt" to effects of alcholol, but it doesn't impact the BAC of the individual. If you had twins, one who drank all the time and one who never drank, and gave both of them 3 Blue Moons, they would both be around a BAC of .08 but the impact to them mentally (coordination, judgement, etc) would be vastly different.
So if your 120 pound girlfriend drank 2 beers in an hour and the two of you had consensual sex you're a rapist. And that's a standard that college counselors are comfortable advocating. Mind boggling.
-
Are you really suggesting that for a college woman (or man) to occasionally (or even regularly) hit .08 they have to be binge drinkers? I think there's something wrong with your calculations.
In short, yes. The definition of binge drinking used by the study I was quoting is 5 or more drinks in a single sitting (an evening). Given that most drinking takes place over a period time and not in a single hour, it would take most people at least five drinks to get to that point. There is a population who probably have hit .08 bac with four drinks or less bit I would guess it's a very small population. Especially given that many students put about 5 drinks with of alcohol into one solo cup these days.
This is another factor in the problem. A pretty much universal underestimation of how much a little alcohol affects a person.
-
However, the threshold you've espoused is very problematic. First, taking the drunk driving analogy (perhaps too far), if two drunk drivers in separate cars get in a car accident with just the two of them.....both are going to jail, regardless of fault. Additionally, at least the first time you are caught drunk driving it is an ordinance violation, not a felony. So by your standard, if both parties are over the 0.08 BAC they should both be charged as neither party could consent.
The problem with this analogy is that someone breaks the law the moment they enter a vehicle while intoxicated. A crash doesn't need to occur for it to be a crime. The more accurate analogy is when a drunk driver hits a drunk pedestrian. Both are drunk but only the driver is going to jail.
-
So if your 120 pound girlfriend drank 2 beers in an hour and the two of you had consensual sex you're a rapist. And that's a standard that college counselors are comfortable advocating. Mind boggling.
Doesn't have to be girlfriend....could be your wife too.
-
Doesn't have to be girlfriend....could be your wife too.
Good point. By TAMU's definition I fear that there are more than a few serial sexual assaulters among the Scoop community.
-
So if your 120 pound girlfriend drank 2 beers in an hour and the two of you had consensual sex you're a rapist. And that's a standard that college counselors are comfortable advocating. Mind boggling.
Again you keep using the word rape. It would a sexual assault. And if the chart is correct (thank you for posting mueng) than yes...except it wouldn't be consensual sex. The alcohol would negate that person's ability to consent.
I want to challenge you to really think about why this concept bothers you. I can post dozens of studies that prove that judgement and decision making are impaired at .08 bac. Given that this is scientific fact, why would wouldn't we negate consent given while under the influence? It was a decision made while that person has enough of a date rape drug in their system to impair their judgement. We don't hold people accountable for contracts they sign while under the influence (iirc, you can be prosecuted for making someone sign something while they are intoxicated), so why do we have a different standard for consent which is a verbal contact of sorts?
I'll also ask where would you draw the line? If not at .08, than where?
-
Again you keep using the word rape. It would a sexual assault. And if the chart is correct (thank you for posting mueng) than yes...except it wouldn't be consensual sex. The alcohol would negate that person's ability to consent.
I want to challenge you to really think about why this concept bothers you. I can post dozens of studies that prove that judgement and decision making are impaired at .08 bac. Given that this is scientific fact, why would wouldn't we negate consent given while under the influence? It was a decision made while that person has enough of a date rape drug in their system to impair their judgement. We don't hold people accountable for contracts they sign while under the influence (iirc, you can be prosecuted for making someone sign something while they are intoxicated), so why do we have a different standard for consent which is a verbal contact of sorts?
I'll also ask where would you draw the line? If not at .08, than where?
The thing I really struggle with is that both parties could and likely are impaired in these scenarios so neither can give consent so both parties are committing sexual assault. So in the eyes of the law, both should be charged which sets up a scenario where one party claims assault and the other counter claims in a "well if I'm going to jail so are you" type of action. That can't possibly be where we want to go with our legal system.
-
So, let's name da basketball dudes who allegedly did dis chit, ai na?
-
Again you keep using the word rape. It would a sexual assault. And if the chart is correct (thank you for posting mueng) than yes...except it wouldn't be consensual sex. The alcohol would negate that person's ability to consent.
I want to challenge you to really think about why this concept bothers you. I can post dozens of studies that prove that judgement and decision making are impaired at .08 bac. Given that this is scientific fact, why would wouldn't we negate consent given while under the influence? It was a decision made while that person has enough of a date rape drug in their system to impair their judgement. We don't hold people accountable for contracts they sign while under the influence (iirc, you can be prosecuted for making someone sign something while they are intoxicated), so why do we have a different standard for consent which is a verbal contact of sorts?
I'll also ask where would you draw the line? If not at .08, than where?
Easy. I draw the line at "NO" and "NO" is "NO" anytime - before or during sex. No means no and yes means yes everywhere but in the Orwellian world you inhabit. No is also implicit when one of the partners is too incapacitated to say yes - falling down or passed out drunk.
But as long as one consents (to steal the car, throw the brick through the window, have sex, etc.) he or she is responsible. Willingly consuming too much alcohol EXPLAINS poor decision making, but it doesn't exonerate one (or put the blame on someone else) for those poor decisions. Period. Two people who voluntarily drink too much and voluntarily get a room own that decision. Both of them.
-
Two people are drunk. Both ride in the same car. One controls the gas and break; the other controls the steering wheel. They arrive home safely.
The next day one person accuses the other of drunk driving. What would justice be in this situation?
-
So if your 120 pound girlfriend drank 2 beers in an hour and the two of you had consensual sex you're a rapist. And that's a standard that college counselors are comfortable advocating. Mind boggling.
Again, sexual assault, not rape. Rape requires physical violence or threat of physical violence. I do want to say here that yes, while anytime someone has sex with someone who is incapacitated it is technically a sexual assault, I do think the response of the two parties does matter in a sense. As I mentioned before, there are going to be people who have sex at well north of incapacitaion and wake up the next morning and feel great about it. Or they might not feel great about it, but they don't feel like they were taken advantage of. While technically an assault occurred, I don't think it would be fair to label that person a victim. They would be well within their rights to bring charges, however, it would not be right for anyone to bring charges on their behalf. I'll give an allegory. When I was in grad school, I was out drinking with a few of my buddies. One of them had a little too much to drink and got into an argument with me (I had been drinking but was a tad bit more sober). He ended up taking a swing at me, it was enough to knock me over and I cracked my head on the bar pretty good. I was dazed, looking back it could have been a concussion, probably should have had it checked out, but I digress. Technically, I was assaulted by my friend. I could have brought assault charges and would have had an open and shut case. But I didn't. I don't consider myself an assault victim and I would challenge anyone who said I was. I think most of the time, having sex with a significant other or spouse while incapacitated would usually all into this category. But you run the risk, what if they wake up the next morning and have no memory of the night before. What if they do feel like they were taken advantage of? You risk both your relationship and legal charges (in some states) and misconduct charges (at all universities that accept federal funding).
I'll also put the caveat here that just because two people are dating or married, does not guarantee consent. A person always has the right to their own body and can choose to not give sex to their partner or spouse.
Universities aren't in the business of finding cases to try. Someone needs to bring charges in order for the university to investigate. We aren't scoping out the bars and seeing who is going home with whom. We only respond when someone bring charges and for that to happen, someone needs to feel like they were taken advantage of. Even then, I would estimate that less than 50% of accused students are found not responsible.
-
Easy. I draw the line at "NO" and "NO" is "NO" anytime - before or during sex. No means no and yes means yes everywhere but in the Orwellian world you inhabit. No is also implicit when one of the partners is too incapacitated to say yes - falling down or passed out drunk.
But as long as one consents (to steal the car, throw the brick through the window, have sex, etc.) he or she is responsible. Willingly consuming too much alcohol EXPLAINS poor decision making, but it doesn't exonerate one (or put the blame on someone else) for those poor decisions. Period. Two people who voluntarily drink too much and voluntarily get a room own that decision. Both of them.
No definitely means no. We agree on that. Unfortunately, no to many college students means try again in a few minutes, or worse try again once they have had a little more to drink.
Yes doesn't always mean yes. Threats, manipulation, blackmail, intimidation, bullying or not giving someone any choice but yes are all tactics used by people to bully people into saying yes.
I would argue that your line with alcohol is too extreme. "Falling down drunk" is a sign of alcohol poisoning, I think there are a few step before that where judgement has become severely impaired. Again, we don't hold people accountable for contract they sign while incapacitated and we prosecute those who manipulate incapacitated people into contracts. Why would we treat a verbal contract like consent differently? We recognize that someone must be in complete control of their faculties to make a business decision. Why wouldn't we recognize that someone must be in complete control of their faculties to make a decision about their body? I would argue the latter is more important.
You are operating in a world view where two people always make the decision to have sex. The reality is that in most of these cases, one person makes the decision to have sex without the blessing of the other person. The decision is made for them. You are placing the burden entirely on the victim. It is their responsibility to say no. Rather than placing the responsibility on the initiator to make sure the person says yes and is in the right state of mind to say yes. I'll give another allegory, a 16 year old has no obligation to tell someone their age if they ask for sex. The burden is on the adult to confirm the other person's age.
-
The thing I really struggle with is that both parties could and likely are impaired in these scenarios so neither can give consent so both parties are committing sexual assault. So in the eyes of the law, both should be charged which sets up a scenario where one party claims assault and the other counter claims in a "well if I'm going to jail so are you" type of action. That can't possibly be where we want to go with our legal system.
I don't disagree with you. That's why earlier I said I agreed with the Title IX standard in theory but not necessarily in practice. There are several issues that come into play including this concept of "revenge" accusations. We don't see it often, but I'm honestly surprised that we don't. I will tell you that what are trained to look for is who is the aggressor in the situation. Contrary to popular belief, these cases usually aren't two people throwing themselves at each other. Its usually one deciding to have sex and the other choosing not to resist. But that can be difficult to determine. That's why a majority of our accused in these situations are found not responsible.
-
I will say this, while I'm not sure I'm on-board with the premise or standard that TAMU is advocating (doesn't mean I don't respect it, just don't agree it's a practical solution) it does highlight what the spirit of any discussion around consent that should and must take place on campus. Students must be made to understand A) consequences of actions while under the influence B) recognize just because you can doesn't mean you should.
I think TAMU's stance is a bit of an overcorrection, however an overcorrection of some type is required otherwise you never move the needle on making college kids recognize the potential outcomes of poor judgement with alcohol involved.
-
FWIW, I am really enjoying and appreciate this discussion. I really hope there are no hard feelings. This has been very beneficial to me. I have trained thousands of students, faculty, and staff on these topics but it is good for me to get some perspective on differing viewpoints and what the perceived issues are. I get questions from those that I train but I know they are often holding back for fear of being judged. I'm the big scary Title IX guy after all (which is hilarious to me, I'm the least intimidating person I know). For example, I have never had to defend the "too drunk to drive is to drunk to consent" line before. Not once in the hundreds of presentations and trainings I've done. Everyone usually smiles, nods, and writes down a note for themselves. Our discussion made me realize that I need to become more familiar with BAC and how alcohol affects the body. I had a general understanding but I need to be able to not just explain what the standard is, but why the standard was put there.
So Glow, Lenny, Eng, thank you. I honestly mean it. I know we have a differing viewpoints and honestly I think we agree on more than we've been saying, but I know all of our hearts are in the right place. We want students to feel safe on campus and we want to see campus sexual assault eradicated. We just have differing views on how to get there.
-
A question for TAMU: Are there any cases you experienced where it was determined that both parties (accused and accuser) were deemed equally culpable?
-
FWIW, I am really enjoying and appreciate this discussion. I really hope there are no hard feelings. This has been very beneficial to me. I have trained thousands of students, faculty, and staff on these topics but it is good for me to get some perspective on differing viewpoints and what the perceived issues are. I get questions from those that I train but I know they are often holding back for fear of being judged. I'm the big scary Title IX guy after all (which is hilarious to me, I'm the least intimidating person I know). For example, I have never had to defend the "too drunk to drive is to drunk to consent" line before. Not once in the hundreds of presentations and trainings I've done. Everyone usually smiles, nods, and writes down a note for themselves. Our discussion made me realize that I need to become more familiar with BAC and how alcohol affects the body. I had a general understanding but I need to be able to not just explain what the standard is, but why the standard was put there.
So Glow, Lenny, Eng, thank you. I honestly mean it. I know we have a differing viewpoints and honestly I think we agree on more than we've been saying, but I know all of our hearts are in the right place. We want students to feel safe on campus and we want to see campus sexual assault eradicated. We just have differing views on how to get there.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/knWj8IasyCf3q/giphy.gif)
-
Our discussion made me realize that I need to become more familiar with BAC and how alcohol affects the body. I had a general understanding but I need to be able to not just explain what the standard is, but why the standard was put there.
I think one of the things that needs to be elaborated on in the education is the concept similar to "buzzed driving is drunk driving". I'm sure you hear it all of the time "he/she seemed fine". How one perceives things is unquestionably altered with any alcohol consumption and the obviousness of that will vary based on drinking experience. When you have both parties who are altered in some way it becomes difficult to recognize what the "truth" is. So it becomes important to recognize that both judgement and perception is altered....for both the aggressor and the receiver of the aggression. A potential victim may think they have been clear, but how that message was received may not be the way it was intended (obviously, no means no, I'm talking about the more fuzzy areas).
-
FWIW, I am really enjoying and appreciate this discussion. I really hope there are no hard feelings. This has been very beneficial to me. I have trained thousands of students, faculty, and staff on these topics but it is good for me to get some perspective on differing viewpoints and what the perceived issues are. I get questions from those that I train but I know they are often holding back for fear of being judged. I'm the big scary Title IX guy after all (which is hilarious to me, I'm the least intimidating person I know). For example, I have never had to defend the "too drunk to drive is to drunk to consent" line before. Not once in the hundreds of presentations and trainings I've done. Everyone usually smiles, nods, and writes down a note for themselves. Our discussion made me realize that I need to become more familiar with BAC and how alcohol affects the body. I had a general understanding but I need to be able to not just explain what the standard is, but why the standard was put there.
So Glow, Lenny, Eng, thank you. I honestly mean it. I know we have a differing viewpoints and honestly I think we agree on more than we've been saying, but I know all of our hearts are in the right place. We want students to feel safe on campus and we want to see campus sexual assault eradicated. We just have differing views on how to get there.
Thank you, TAMU. We have our disagreements but I hope Title IX counselors at all schools are as dedicated to the student's well being as you are.
One aspect we didn't touch on - people (especially young, relatively inexperienced people) are often conflicted about how far they want to go sexually. They use alcohol purposely to relieve their inhibitions and make them more comfortable about being sexually active. How do you counsel people about using alcohol that way? It's hard to imagine anyone considering consensual sex sexual assault under those circumstances.
-
If Chappelle were to do his consent skit on a campus today, I guess he'd have to add a breathalizer to it.
-
I think one of the things that needs to be elaborated on in the education is the concept similar to "buzzed driving is drunk driving". I'm sure you hear it all of the time "he/she seemed fine". How one perceives things is unquestionably altered with any alcohol consumption and the obviousness of that will vary based on drinking experience. When you have both parties who are altered in some way it becomes difficult to recognize what the "truth" is. So it becomes important to recognize that both judgement and perception is altered....for both the aggressor and the receiver of the aggression. A potential victim may think they have been clear, but how that message was received may not be the way it was intended (obviously, no means no, I'm talking about the more fuzzy areas).
So instead of trying get at what can only be a "version" or fuzzy recollection of the truth, maybe counselors should be pounding a different drum. Having a few drinks and still be adamant about saying NO and having a few drinks and enthusiastically saying YES are your two choices. Whenever there's the slightest amount of doubt or hint of hesitation, choose A.
-
What's been enlightening to me is how far the pendulum has apparently swung. No one here advocates for inappropriate behavior. I guess where Lenny and I are is that what's being described at the margin sounds like pretty normal behavior.
I'll go back to that article that was linked. Everyone was cool until a meddling mom decided to read her kids diary. And then proceeded to ruin a kids life. Helicopter b*tch.
-
I don't know what was posted or any of those details but if you believe that, "well it's on Facebook so it has to be true!" then you believe there were no planes on 9/11 and there were bombs set up in the World Trade Centers to knock them down, all these mass shootings aren't actually happening they're just actors and actresses, including little kids, etc.
That's a scary thought.
I didn't compare her to anybody. But okay?
You paralleled his belief of his personal friend's Facebook post about a heinous event (that happened to her) to people believing Facebook conspiracy posts.
At minimum it was brutally insensitive. Mostly you just look like an a$$hole. I understand how he might be a bit upset.
-
You are operating in a world view where two people always make the decision to have sex. The reality is that in most of these cases, one person makes the decision to have sex without the blessing of the other person. The decision is made for them. You are placing the burden entirely on the victim. It is their responsibility to say no. Rather than placing the responsibility on the initiator to make sure the person says yes and is in the right state of mind to say yes. I'll give another allegory, a 16 year old has no obligation to tell someone their age if they ask for sex. The burden is on the adult to confirm the other person's age.
This is the really key point for me.
Too often consent is viewed through the lens of the lack of "a clear no" meaning "yes."
It should be the lack of a clear yes means no.
Those who scoff at the notion of enthusiastic consent vastly overstate the difficulty in attaining it.
-
You paralleled his belief of his personal friend's Facebook post about a heinous event (that happened to her) to people believing Facebook conspiracy posts.
At minimum it was brutally insensitive. Mostly you just look like an a$$hole. I understand how he might be a bit upset.
Why would it make me look like an pretty boy? I didn't parallel his belief to anything. I said using Facebook posts as proof of anything isn't exactly the best idea. 2+2=4. Nobody can really argue that, it's a fact. But I certainly wouldn't reference someone's Facebook post saying 2+2=4 as proof that 2+2=4.
It wasn't insensitive, it wasn't paralleling anything, and I would think it wouldn't make me look like an pretty boy, but if it does so be it. Using Facebook posts as proof of anything means absolutely nothing. Simple as that.
-
This is the really key point for me.
Too often consent is viewed through the lens of the lack of "a clear no" meaning "yes."
It should be the lack of a clear yes means no.
Those who scoff at the notion of enthusiastic consent vastly overstate the difficulty in attaining it.
I agree. But I think one of the challenges of the issue being debated here is that many people at 0.08 show little or no outward sign of intoxication. A 120 pound woman who has consumed three beers in two hours could give a "clear yes" and "enthusiastically consent" and this would be considered sexual assault. I find that a little troubling.
-
Couple of problems with this statement.
First, why did you bring up going on a date and "willingly consuming alcohol"? I'm sure this wasn't your intent, but it seems like you are implying that going on a date and consuming alcohol means that sex is owed or expected. Nothing about going on a date or drinking grants consent to someone else for sex.
Second, I never said anything of the sort. Regret has nothing to do with anything. If a person has sex with someone else while they are incapacitated from alcohol than it is rape. A person can no longer consent to sex after consuming a certain amount of alcohol. Even if the drunk person is throwing themselves at someone, that person has a legal responsibility (in some states) and university responsibility (at all universities that accept federal funding) to not engage in any sort of sexual activity with the incapacitated individual.
Third, while most assaults are male on female, I feel it is necessary to mention that assaults can occur between two men, two women, or a woman on a man.
Fourth, this is not an opinion. It is a federal regulation. In some states it is law. In the near future, it will hopefully be law in all states. A lot of progress has been made the last few years.
As Chick said, alcohol is considered a date rape drug in Wisconsin. I know in the past it was considered normal and acceptable for men and women to get good and liquored up and then have sex. Those days are fortunately ending. To be clear, drunk sex can still happen. You can go out with a friend and have a few drinks, but if the person is to the point of intoxication, then no sex can occur.
So you are telling me that if a male student reported that he was sexually assaulted by a female student his privacy would be protected, witnesses heard corroborating what he told them; and then the accused female would be called that a decision was made the she could no longer remain at the university based on the evidence presented by the accused whom they will not identify.
-
I bet most of you don't know that in Wisconsin, alcohol is considered a date rape drug. So right or wrong, if you get a girl liquored up and have sex with her, you are taking your chances. It's something they cover during freshman orientation at MU.
What if the girl gets a guy liquored up and has sex; what is that? Oh, that never, ever happens.
-
I agree. But I think one of the challenges of the issue being debated here is that many people at 0.08 show little or no outward sign of intoxication. A 120 pound woman who has consumed three beers in two hours could give a "clear yes" and "enthusiastically consent" and this would be considered sexual assault. I find that a little troubling.
I agree, though I'm not really sure that would ever be ruled a sexual assault in real life. Can anyone really cite a single instance of something like that happening?
The reality is, few offenders are ever charged, few of those actually charged are ever convicted, and few of those actually convicted ever get locked up for any substantial amount of time.
While there have been egregious cases of innocent guys being fracked by the system, such cases are exceptionally rare. There's no epidemic of false rape charges. You're six times more likely to be mauled to death by a dog than you are to be falsely accused of rape.
And while we certainly must take all reasonable steps to eliminate those instances, we shouldn't do so at the expense of reducing sexual violence as much as possible.
-
So you are telling me that if a male student reported that he was sexually assaulted by a female student his privacy would be protected, witnesses heard corroborating what he told them; and then the accused female would be called that a decision was made the she could no longer remain at the university based on the evidence presented by the accused whom they will not identify.
Unless the woman blows into a breathalyzer immediately before or after the act, and there is an independent witness there to read the results, I think it is highly unlikely a guy is going to get convicted based on BAT for having sex with a woman that has no outward signs of drunkenness. What is the prosecutor going to use as evidence?
-
This is the really key point for me.
Too often consent is viewed through the lens of the lack of "a clear no" meaning "yes."
It should be the lack of a clear yes means no.
Those who scoff at the notion of enthusiastic consent vastly overstate the difficulty in attaining it.
The pendulum (in my era) was ridiculously skewed to the point where no (wink, wink) might actually mean yes.
Today TAMU asserts that a clear yes might actually mean no.
Both Orwellian, both absurd. but that's where we've been and, in some spaces anyway, that's where we are.
What we should be teaching our young people is this is not an area where ambiguity or nuance wins the day. Silence is not golden. Yes or no. At every stage along the way. Your words mean something and excuses (I drank too much, I was mad at my parents, I was depressed because I broke up with my girlfriend/boyfriend) don't turn yeses into nos or vice versa.
-
Unless the woman blows into a breathalyzer immediately before or after the act, and there is an independent witness there to read the results, I think it is highly unlikely a guy is going to get convicted based on BAT for having sex with a woman that has no outward signs of drunkenness. What is the prosecutor going to use as evidence?
Agreed (at least for now). But colleges apparently place the threshold at a much lower level. Sounds like in some cases an accusation is all it takes.
-
I am glad I went to MU 50 years ago. It was a much simpler time. Most of my class mates were brought up with a Catholic upbringing, which meant you treated a young woman with respect and sex was something you did after you were married ( I know how archaic ). I never had to ask permission to hold hands or kiss on any of my dates and there were many; it just happened. In fact if you asked permission they would probably consider you some kind of a prude. I guess by today's standard I would be a serial sexual predator by how many girls I kissed without getting an absolutely unambiguous "Yes you can kiss me." preferably in writing. From what I can tell it seems Title IX training has taken all the romance out of dating.
-
I agree, though I'm not really sure that would ever be ruled a sexual assault in real life. Can anyone really cite a single instance of something like that happening?
The reality is, few offenders are ever charged, few of those actually charged are ever convicted, and few of those actually convicted ever get locked up for any substantial amount of time.
While there have been egregious cases of innocent guys being fracked by the system, such cases are exceptionally rare. There's no epidemic of false rape charges. You're six times more likely to be mauled to death by a dog than you are to be falsely accused of rape.
And while we certainly must take all reasonable steps to eliminate those instances, we shouldn't do so at the expense of reducing sexual violence as much as possible.
But we're not talking about "real life." We're talking about college campuses (or at least I think we are). And for a kid who gets kicked out of college, I suppose it's some consolation that they're not going to be charged criminally. Maybe not a lot...but some. Sexual assault on campuses is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed. I think we all agree on that. But I personally think that in some cases the pendulum has swung too far. The thought that a boy could have sex with an girl who "enthusiastically consents" after drinking three beers in two hours and is showing no signs of intoxication and then be charged with sexual assault if she regrets in the next morning (or if her parents/friends/roommates regret it for her) is a little troubling. Sure, he's not going to get charged and prosecuted, but it might profoundly affect his life. Honestly, I really wonder what percentage of college students who have sex in this country every weekend would be deemed to not have consented to the sex under the 0.08 standard. And anyone who watched Friends and has seen "The One with the Videotape" knows it can be difficult to know who initiated sex.
Also an honest question: what amount of pot renders someone incapable of consent.
-
Chastity belts, hey?
Perhaps more like common sense; but then again that is in the eye (mind) of the beholder.
-
I don't know why I bothered. Reading comprehension on this site is generally on a level <0 when someone has a differing view. Here goes one more try:
Why would it make me look like an pretty boy? I didn't parallel his belief to anything. I said using Facebook posts as proof of anything isn't exactly the best idea. 2+2=4. Nobody can really argue that, it's a fact. But I certainly wouldn't reference someone's Facebook post saying 2+2=4 as proof that 2+2=4.
It wasn't insensitive, it wasn't paralleling anything, and I would think it wouldn't make me look like an pretty boy, but if it does so be it. Using Facebook posts as proof of anything means absolutely nothing. Simple as that.
To the underlined: I would agree that is true on things like "click-bait" links and similar things. False things can be skewed as fact very rapidly on the internet. This is not one of those situations.
To the bolded:
If/then (sic)
I don't know what was posted or any of those details but if you believe that, "well it's on Facebook so it has to be true!" then you believe there were no planes on 9/11 and there were bombs set up in the World Trade Centers to knock them down, all these mass shootings aren't actually happening they're just actors and actresses, including little kids, etc.
It is the man's personal friend and you saying he shouldn't believe her Facebook post merely because it is on Facebook and people post false things on Facebook (like conspiracy theories). He didn't believe it because it was on Facebook, he believed it because the girl is his friend. That is the insulting part.
(http://i1272.photobucket.com/albums/y396/brwn_eyedbabe/gifs/Squidwardheaddesk_zps54088388.gif)
I'll stop now because I don't want to overstep and put words into Bagpiper's mouth. Just saying how I understood his point of view to be angry to you questioning his belief of someone he personally knows. Also, I've been informed this topic has moved elsewhere (where I will not join).
-
I am glad I went to MU 50 years ago. It was a much simpler time. Most of my class mates were brought up with a Catholic upbringing, which meant you treated a young woman with respect and sex was something you did after you were married ( I know how archaic ). I never had to ask permission to hold hands or kiss on any of my dates and there were many; it just happened. In fact if you asked permission they would probably consider you some kind of a prude. I guess by today's standard I would be a serial sexual predator by how many girls I kissed without getting an absolutely unambiguous "Yes you can kiss me." preferably in writing. From what I can tell it seems Title IX training has taken all the romance out of dating.
Not really. Not much has changed for most people.
-
Oh and I voted for 0 Kelvin :)
-
I am glad I went to MU 50 years ago. It was a much simpler time. Most of my class mates were brought up with a Catholic upbringing, which meant you treated a young woman with respect and sex was something you did after you were married ( I know how archaic ). I never had to ask permission to hold hands or kiss on any of my dates and there were many; it just happened. In fact if you asked permission they would probably consider you some kind of a prude. I guess by today's standard I would be a serial sexual predator by how many girls I kissed without getting an absolutely unambiguous "Yes you can kiss me." preferably in writing. From what I can tell it seems Title IX training has taken all the romance out of dating.
Did the 60s somehow skip over Marquette's campus?
-
I don't know why I bothered. Reading comprehension on this site is generally on a level <0 when someone has a differing view. Here goes one more try:
To the underlined: I would agree that is true on things like "click-bait" links and similar things. False things can be skewed as fact very rapidly on the internet. This is not one of those situations.
To the bolded:
If/then (sic)
It is the man's personal friend and you saying he shouldn't believe her Facebook post merely because it is on Facebook and people post false things on Facebook (like conspiracy theories). He didn't believe it because it was on Facebook, he believed it because the girl is his friend. That is the insulting part.
(http://i1272.photobucket.com/albums/y396/brwn_eyedbabe/gifs/Squidwardheaddesk_zps54088388.gif)
I'll stop now because I don't want to overstep and put words into Bagpiper's mouth. Just saying how I understood his point of view to be angry to you questioning his belief of someone he personally knows. Also, I've been informed this topic has moved elsewhere (where I will not join).
I didn't question anyone's belief of anyone else. But okay.
Siting a Facebook post, regardless of who posted it or what it's on or how truthful it is, as proving something is fact, is as smart as siting a Wikipedia page in a dissertation. Just because I won't take my best friend's Facebook post as gospel doesn't mean I have serious questions about his or her character. It means I understand what social media is.
If he wanted to make the point that, "Hey, I know this girl personally, I know her take on it, and I know that she wouldn't fabricate anything that serious. I know for a fact something bad happened and I trust her and feel horrible for her, and it's disgusting that people would make the team members the victim in this situation," then go ahead and say that. When you say, "What about the victim's Facebook posts on the matter?! It's clear it happened!" well, I can point to millions of examples of very trustworthy people posting something on Facebook that isn't true. That doesn't mean that I don't trust that he knows the girl and that she's a victim and a trustworthy person. It means that siting Facebook as proof is a mistake.
Not difficult to understand.
I literally said nothing about the situation at all. From what I've heard it's not something to be proud of as both an MU basketball fan and an MU alum. So I'm sure he does know what he's talking about and I'm sure it's a horrible situation. Doesn't make her posting on Facebook proof of that.
-
The thought that a boy could have sex with an girl who "enthusiastically consents" after drinking three beers in two hours and is showing no signs of intoxication and then be charged with sexual assault if she regrets in the next morning (or if her parents/friends/roommates regret it for her) is a little troubling.
You've said this twice now. And I agree.
But I'm asking whether anyone is aware of any instances in which this actually occurred. Can anyone cite cases - even a singular case - in which some was found/adjudicated guilty of sexual assault under the scenario you've laid out above.
-
Did the 60s somehow skip over Marquette's campus?
From my experience, for the most part, pretty much. The dorms back in my day were segregated by gender and if you brought some one of the opposite sex to your room it was quickly reported. Curfews were pretty much followed (yes, we had curfews). In fact the dress codes were dropped my Senior year, 68-69. The 60s didn't happen until the 70s at MU.
-
After reading this entire discussion, I'm gonna take a strong stance and say I'm against sexual assault.
Thank you.
-
You've said this twice now. And I agree.
But I'm asking whether anyone is aware of any instances in which this actually occurred. Can anyone cite cases - even a singular case - in which some was found/adjudicated guilty of sexual assault under the scenario you've laid out above.
I can't cite any. I'm simply responding to the fact that apparently there are those in higher education that feel very passionately that this is the appropriate standard and result. Based on what I've read on this thread, TAMU would be the one to have this information. On the previous page, he said, "a majority of our accused in these situations are found not responsible." The obvious implication of this sentence is that there is a minority that are found to be responsible. Not sure how many that would be. And not sure if the results at other schools would be comparable.
-
I referenced Facebook to point to her rising above the incident and being a vocal individual for victims. If I wanted to say all that other stuff you mentioned then that puts more emphasis on what happened to her rather than how impressive it is she rose above it.
-
I referenced Facebook to point to her rising above the incident and being a vocal individual for victims. If I wanted to say all that other stuff you mentioned then that puts more emphasis on what happened to her rather than how impressive it is she rose above it.
Fair enough. Lost in translation. My apologies.
-
What's been enlightening to me is how far the pendulum has apparently swung. No one here advocates for inappropriate behavior. I guess where Lenny and I are is that what's being described at the margin sounds like pretty normal behavior.
I'll go back to that article that was linked. Everyone was cool until a meddling mom decided to read her kids diary. And then proceeded to ruin a kids life. Helicopter b*tch.
I have some sympathy for the mom. It was the University who proceeded to ruin a kids life.
-
TAMU and other Title IX compliance folks may want to consider The Onion's proposed changes for colleges viz sexual assaults:
..."Several high-profile assault cases on college campuses are leading many schools to address how they prevent and respond to them. Here are some ways universities can protect students from assault:
• Create a safe system in which students can freely report any non-varsity-athlete attackers to campus authorities
• Installation of a 24-hour hotline for anyone with information on what the victim was wearing that night
• Formulating a written action plan that outlines exactly how the school will deflect reports of assault
• Ask all prospective students to thoroughly explicate the word “no” on their applications
• TKE’s blacklight rush party to be attended by at least one Title IX attorney
• Grievance panels to carefully assess all the facts from both victim and assailant to determine whose family is the bigger donor
• Lengthen orientation-week skits about alcohol tolerance and party safety from 15 minutes to a full 25
• Provide everyone on campus, both students and faculty, with a clear definition of behaviors that constitute boys just being boys
• Allegations to be immediately reviewed by a dedicated team of internet commenters...."
lol
Its worth noting that the dedicated team of internet commenters is already available to MU, courtesy of the fine folks at MU Scoop. lol
-
Very good conversation, and I now feel comfortable posting this
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/68505499.jpg)
-
I really want to download the Mulatto Butts ringtone for when my wife calls my phone. But I'm concerned about what message it may send if it goes off in public.
-
I really want to download the Mulatto Butts ringtone for when my wife calls my phone. But I'm concerned about what message it may send if it goes off in public.
Yeah, better be careful about that. I programmed "Barbie Girl" to play whenever my daughter called (who hardly ever calls me), and wouldn't you know it? She called me while I was interviewing for a job. One the upside, it looked like it was a terrible company to work for, and I never forgot to silence my phone during job interviews after that.
-
Guess da vibrator function on da phone works real well. Just sayin', hey?
-
Yeah, better be careful about that. I programmed "Barbie Girl" to play whenever my daughter called (who hardly ever calls me), and wouldn't you know it? She called me while I was interviewing for a job. One the upside, it looked like it was a terrible company to work for, and I never forgot to silence my phone during job interviews after that.
I always leave my cellphone in the car for interviews. I just didn't want to be tempted!
-
Back to the topic of the thread......
I am going to stand up and be counted. I am against it.
-
Back to the topic of the thread......
I am going to stand up and be counted. I am against it.
Duly noted... but have you even seen Archer?
-
I really want to download the Mulatto Butts ringtone for when my wife calls my phone. But I'm concerned about what message it may send if it goes off in public.
I had this a couple phones ago, didn't go well.
On the other hand the pirate 'what what' song is perfect.
-
Now it's Indiana being sued.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/26/rape-expulsion-defamation-lawsuit/95854638/
-
Now it's Indiana being sued.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/26/rape-expulsion-defamation-lawsuit/95854638/
These lawsuits are fairly common. Unfortunately, they rarely play out because it's cheaper for universities to settle out of court than it is to fight them. Lawyers know this and count on it. The office of Civil Rights will look into the title IX complaint, likely audit IU. The audit will last 5+ years because OCR is bogged down because of how common these complaints are. Unless there truly was a screw up, the complaint will close with zero findings.