Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 229 posts

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#191

Post by ZeroGravitas »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #184
thaumasiotes wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here, as mainstream as media channels get: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/colle... Relevant points include: (1) some schools' policies are worded so as to "lead to a young man being found responsible for a sexual offense simply if the complainant establishes that she had any degree of intoxication"; and (2) even where the policy would appear to be stricter than that, administrators frequently…

> The Los Angeles Times summed up the events: “The college’s investigative report, performed by an outside firm, said both parties agreed on the following facts: Both had been drinking, she went to his room, took off her shirt while dancing, made out with him and returned to his room later for sex, asking if he had a condom. When friends stopped by the room to ask if she was OK, she told them yes.” Prior to their enc…

That's impressive. Twice on HN I've asked someone to back up the drunk sex = rape claim and in both occasions they've came back with the exact same incident.

It truly must be an epidemic.

As I pointed out the last time, and indeed in this very thread when I asked for some kind of proof this wasn't all just bunk, both these people were very, very drunk. Vomiting repeatedly drunk. No recollection of having sex drunk. If anyone sober had had sex with these people, they'd be considered by most people to have been taken advantage of. The only reason this is a gray area is that both people got themselves into such a state that they themselves have no idea whether they broke the law that night. Which isn't a great defence in any legal situation.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#192

Post by ZeroGravitas »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #186
thaumasiotes wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More from Slate: > While women’s consumption is often considered a mitigating factor at campus tribunals, men’s consumption generally is not. This disparity is sex discrimination, says Brett Sokolow, president of the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management. Sokolow has long fought for harsh penalties for accused men on campus. But in an open letter titled “Sex and Booze,” he writes: “If both are intoxica…

Here are some highlights from that article of KC Johnson's (from http://www.mindingthecampus.com/2014/06/if-she-had-drinks-yo... -- your call as to how mainstream Minding the Campus is): > Broadening what constitutes sexual assault by redefining consent has been a principal goal of “activists”—who have worked with sympathetic faculty and (increasingly) the OCR. The McLeod case at Duke is a particular obvious example…

I think we both know that's neither a mainstream, nor a neutral source, and it's not presenting it's argument fairly.

It puts scare quotes around "activitists" for goodness sake. That doesn't even make sense.

I don't see anything particularly shocking in your quotes, yet it's all written as if I should. For example, a "yes" from a sufficiently drunk person, may not count as consent, even if they're not literally unconcious. That doesn't sound particuarly extreme to me. In fact I'm more worried about the schools that apparently require incapacitated to mean unconscious since I've seen plenty of people unaware of what was going on due to alcohol, without being literally passed out.

So we've arrived at a solid definition of "drunk" at least, as this article makes clear that if you've not literally passed out, then they consider you capable of giving consent to sex. That's not the line I'd choose, but if you continue to argue for this, please just state that up front so overyone knows where they stand.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#193

Post by zyx321 »

cauterized wrote: post #176
zyx321 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do have a point. It's conservative in the sense that it has been this way for a long time and that it's been working out well enough. Why do we need to change it? And no, rehashing the old ">2011" meme for the millionth time is not a valid argument.

Working out well enough for whom?

I would like to posit a variation of the anthropic principle:

We are currently alive to have this discussion, therefore the things we've done to get here are not the worst we could have done.

I recognize that's not the strongest argument, but it sure as heck beats the stupid "it's 2016, therefore you are on the wrong side of history" meme that people seem so fond of throwing around.

To answer your question: Working out well enough for you, me, and everyone here.

So can we please stop trying to force the latest political fad into everything ever?

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#194

Post by xlm1717 »

venomsnake wrote: post #26
lmm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is the justice system's whole job, and they've gotten pretty ok at it.

Courts start from presumption of innocence. Which is something that is not compatible with the "victim's story should not be questioned or challenged" approach that some advocates like.

Who has time for due process when such misogynistic injustice is taking place.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#195

Post by erroneousfunk »

deciplex wrote: post #11

It wasn't long ago that I would have agreed with this article in full. I may have even posted here on HN to that effect before. I am still sympathetic to the point it makes. However: Universities boot people out for other reasons which are not actionable in a criminal (or even civil) court all the time . Getting shitty grades, being a disruptive asshole in a class on a regular basis, and so on, can end your universit…

But it's not just about Universities booting people out of school because it's their own private club and they can do what they want. There are some weird terrible consequences that come out of the "school court" system that many people don't realize are perfectly legal, and commonly practiced.

A student at my alma mater was brought before the "honor board," where the school specifically prohibits lawyers at the hearings. Part of the required procedure for these hearings is giving a full account of your side of the story, and answer questions from school administrators, a "jury of your peers" and the person bringing the case against you.

These two things combined wouldn't be such a huge deal, except that the person bringing the case against her was the chief of campus police -- a registered police officer in the town the school was in.

So the deal was either "automatic expulsion with no proceedings" or "give your account of the story and answer questions from us and a police officer without a lawyer present"

So we have 18-21 year olds, forced to testify against themselves, without lawyers, in front of police officers. Also keep in mind that this often isn't just a case of "well, it sucks that they're threatening your degree..." These students often live and eat on-campus. They may not have significant money in the bank between student loans. They may have recently moved and not know anyone in the area. In the case of my friend, the school got a restraining order that prevented her from being on campus, and changed the locks on her housing, all without warning, in order to put pressure on her to leave quietly. I mean, she was living out of a backpack and sleeping on a couch while going through the Honor Board case, but if she left, she'd have access to her stuff again. It was nuts.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#196

Post by Steuard »

nailer wrote: post #188
Steuard wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In answer to your initial questions, yes? To all of them? If you're sitting close to someone you're attracted to and you turn to stare into their eyes and they don't smile back or snuggle closer or lick their lips or do something to indicate that they appreciate the increased attention, it seems like a no-brainer that the right move at that point is to back off at least to the level of interaction that they last seem…

> If you're sitting close to someone you're attracted to and you turn to stare into their eyes and they don't smile back or snuggle closer or lick their lips or do something That's afterwards . I was asking about the general explicit consent concept, which is one must ask explicitly before escalating.

I feel like you're framing this as enormously more complicated than it needs to be. As I understand it, within the affirmative consent framework it is fine to move toward escalating as long as your partner has sufficient chance to signal their comfort before you actually cross any lines.

In a lot of the essential cases, those lines are reasonably well-defined. So (e.g.) if you want to touch someone's bare skin under their clothes for the first time in a given encounter, signal that intention somehow and then pause a moment to catch their eye or to give them a chance to react. If their reaction isn't unambiguously positive, back off, and don't be the first one to signal that interest again without checking in verbally. (If their reaction is positive, cool.)

In other cases, like many of your examples, the lines are fuzzy. Merely looking at someone briefly isn't any more intimate than "sitting close" (which we're assuming they've already signaled they're happy with), but eventually a long gaze might become pretty intense (pro or con). So as you approach that fuzzy border, it's your job to pay attention to their reaction. If they smile and gaze back, awesome, keep it up. (Hey, maybe they're gearing up to lean in and offer that kiss.) If they turn away or look annoyed, then of course you should ratchet back rather than maintaining your stare all the way to the creepy point.

I feel silly spelling all of that out so explicitly! It seems like any person who's paying attention to whether their partner is having a good time would just automatically pick up on these reactions as a matter of course (and at that point only a real twit wouldn't adjust their own behavior accordingly). And when there's any uncertainty, yeah, you've got to touch base verbally.

But in practice I think that's pretty rare. Honestly, based on my own limited experience in these situations, people who want a sexual encounter to progress are usually entirely unambiguous about that fact, with or without words. If they're not actively encouraging you (and you don't know them really well), why push it if they're not into it?

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#197

Post by TheCoelacanth »

reso wrote: post #83
DanBC wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't "unknowingly" commit theft (intent to dishonestly permanently deprive), emezzlement (intent to deceive) or murder (intent to unlawfully kill someone).

As a clear counterexample: you can certainly commit negligent homicide without intending to.

Even with negligent homicide the perpetrator's mindset is still taken into account. It is only negligent homicide if they should reasonably have known that their actions could cause the death.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#198

Post by Steuard »

tomp wrote: post #105
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't taking all reasonable steps to ascertain consent what the affirmative consent thing is all about? It's one of those sensible things, like recycling, renewable energy, belief in evolution, or decent medical coverage, that somehow becomes a very bitter political issue for no logical reason.

I don't think affirmative consent is sensible at all. If it were made law, then I would have been raped, and been raping at the same time, during pretty much all sex I've had in my life! Obviously it's possible to have amazing consensual sex without affirmative consent.

I literally cannot imagine amazing sex that doesn't easily pass the threshold of "affirmative consent".

As I quoted elsewhere in the thread, the definition that pops up on Google reads, "Affirmative consent is a knowing, voluntary, and mutual decision among all participants to engage in sexual activity. Consent can be given by words or actions, as long as those words or actions create clear permission regarding willingness to engage in the sexual activity." [http://system.suny.edu/sexual-violence-prevention-workgroup/...]

Any attempt I make to imagine "amazing sex" involves my partner being every bit as excited about what's going on as I am, at every step along the way. That means that when I'd signal interest in doing something new, she'd be expressing delight about it in one way or another (and vice versa). Anything of the sort would satisfy this definition with flying colors.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#199

Post by cauterized »

zyx321 wrote: post #193
cauterized wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working out well enough for whom?

I would like to posit a variation of the anthropic principle: We are currently alive to have this discussion, therefore the things we've done to get here are not the worst we could have done. I recognize that's not the strongest argument, but it sure as heck beats the stupid "it's 2016, therefore you are on the wrong side of history" meme that people seem so fond of throwing around. To answer your question: Working o…

It's been working out well enough that we're alive? That's a pretty low standard for whether we should discuss the intersection of social/political issues and the tech industry. Surely in that case, we shouldn't be discussing any regulations or taxation of the tech industry either?

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#200

Post by nickysielicki »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #181
nickysielicki wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe "I would fire this person, if they worked for me" or "I would kick this person out of my social club" are more apt. You can't have it both ways. Universities shouldn't be able to get the benefit of federal endowments and federally guaranteed student loans while also being considered aristocratic social clubs with the autonomy to pick and choose and deny whoever they want. If they're a resource that is so impo…

By that logic, universities shouldn't be able to kick someone out for being disruptive repeatedly or getting bad grades. No?

I think you could work those policies into law.
Post reply on HN