Maria Tsikalas
Marquette University
Dear Ms. Tsikalas,
I founded the Web site devoted to giving voice to persons wrongly accused of sex crimes, False Rape Society. I am forwarding a copy of this email to FIRE because it is the authority on the issues raised in this note, and the matters referenced here might be of interest to it.
I write regarding your thoughtful editorial titled "Sexual violence videos make mistakes, but don’t give up on them," found here: http://marquettetribune.org/2011/09/27/viewpoints/editorial-sexual-assault-videos-make-mistakes-but-dont-give-up-on-them-kc1-sb2-td3/.
In your editorial, you explain that Marquette is sponsoring online videos to train student leaders and incoming students on sexual assault. A previous article in the Marquette Tribune noted: "All first-year students and many student leaders are partaking in a sexual assault awareness program as part of a new initiative against sexual violence on campus." http://marquettetribune.org/2011/09/20/news/assault-bg1-sb2-td3/
I am assuming that the program referenced in that previous article is the same one you discuss in your editorial, but I am not sure that this assumption is correct. I am also assuming that the program you discuss is mandatory for first year students. Would you be able to verify?
In your editorial, you state the following:
"While the videos provide a lot of good information addressing what sexual assault actually is and how to recognize and prevent it, the valuable parts are juxtaposed with off-putting moments and absurd ideas.
"The 'typical male college student' played by an actor is offensive and completely unaware of the issues and why they are important, which seems unfair to males in general. One has to wonder why the videos could not have portrayed the character as a normal college student looking to learn more about sexual assault instead of a crass and willfully ignorant male needing to be set straight.
"Do we need such an overtly negative image of college guys? The clips describing different ways men try to pressure college women into potential assault situations, while fair and comprehensive, seem to do the job.
"If we want college men to take these videos seriously and realize the immensity of the issues, it is questionable whether this caricature is the best way to depict them."
You are to be commended for highlighting the "overtly negative" and "offensive" portrayal of the "typical male college student," as "crass and willfully ignorant," which, if your description is accurate, clearly is "unfair to males in general." I am not able to find the program in order to view it, and would very much appreciate that opportunity. Could you be able to assist in that, or to advise who might be able to help?
Your editorial raises a concern that this video presentation may constitute an impermissible invasion of students' conscience. Last year, FIRE challenged a college for making attendance mandatory at a sexual assault program that was overtly offensive to males and that sought to reengineer student thinking to conform to an ideology of the college's preference. See here: http://thefire.org/public/pdfs/ec98c2707e17186e96211e9aa553e699.pdf?direct The college backed down and make attendance at the program discretionary.
___________________
Your editorial also references "clips describing different ways men try to pressure college women into potential assault situations." I am also interested in seeing those. I note that Marquette's sexual assualt policy, found here http://www.marquette.edu/osd/policies/sexual_policy.shtml, says that a person may not consent to sex if s/he is "psychologically pressured." The clips you reference seem speak to such psychological pressure. Is that correct?
The "psychologically pressured" definition is problematic for at least two reasons:
First, Marquette's prohibition is worded so broadly that it could be applied to punish conduct that that is, by any lawful measure, consensual. A college's sexual misconduct policy cannot be a clearinghouse to redress every less than ideal sexual encounter. Marquette's policy could be applied to punish students for engaging in what is nothing more than immature and boorish sexual nagging, even though the "nagged" student had a reasonable alternative other than to engage in the sex act. By no recognized legal standard does sexual nagging or anything similar negate consent.*
Second, the language of the policy is so vague that it does not pass Constitutional muster. "The test is whether the language conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices." Jordan v. DeGeorge, 341 U.S. 223 (1951). A college's sexual misconduct policy cannot be a guessing game. It is entirely uncertain what "psychologically pressured" means, and it could be applied to all manner of situations that, by any reasonable measure, should not be prohibitted. Therefore, it does not adequately put the student body on notice as to what is prohibited.
I also note that, apparently, the clip shows only guys pressuring women. That, too, is problematic, and offensive, because studies show that men experience alleged sexual coercion almost as much as women. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID45-PR45.pdf
These are issues of serious concern to the community of the wrongfully accused. We promote respect for the critical balance between (1) punishing sexual wrongdoing, and (2) insuring that the innocent are not punished with the guilty. The matters referenced in this note and promoted by your university do not adequately respect the latter part of that balance.
Thank you.
False Rape Society
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/
*The concept of consent has its roots in the common law equitable doctrine of assumpsit, based on contract. A contract is voidable for duress if a victim's manifestation of assent has been induced by an improper threat, and if the victim has no reasonable alternative but to agree. At the very least, that last part -- the "no reasonable alternative" -- is missing from Marquette's "psychologically pressured" definition.
Posts
8 comments:
On a related note, I do hope that you will publically dismantle Hugo Schwyzer's latest BS as well.
Gender-feminists like Hugo Schwyzer are perverting the course of justice in ways that don't harm other gender-feminists. The main target of these perversions of the course of justice are college male athletes.
During the Duke lacrosse false rape accusation, there were legions of Gender-Raunch swarming the streets calling for the blood of the innocent, and the only ones who stood by the guys were the womens lacrosse team.
What we are witnessing in the US, is gender-Raunch dominance of Academia, and with this dominance they are perverting the course of justice to further "Empower" themselves.
Don't respond to Hugo Schwayer he is a World class turd and feeds off people responding to him. Ignore him and he will eventually dissappear.
I skimmed Hugo's piece.
Sigh.
OK. I "get" the premise. Why would anyone want to have sex with a woman who really didn't want to? Who could disagree?
Does Hugo understand that men and women are often not in sync on sex? I know that must sound shocking and wrong and maybe even sexist or misogynistic to some naive young people because, you know, men and women are exactly the same and all in their progressive Nirvana. My guess is that in most stable relationships, a woman is happy to have sex sometimes principally because it makes her lover happy and not because she otherwise wants it. And it makes her lover happy to do certain things for her that maybe he'd otherwise rather not do right at that moment.
When my wife was trying to get pregnant, I was called into service sometimes when it wasn't convenient. Was she an "accidental rapist"? Let me guess, it can't work in reverse, right?
Hugo is looking at it wrong. Someone can willingly have sex, or do anything else, even though they'd probably prefer not to do it at that particular moment, but the act serves other perfectly legitimate purposes. That's not a problem unless one party takes advantage of, or disrespects, the other. The question people need to ask is, am I being selfish? Every mature person in a healthy relationship knows all that. It is common sense.
On a more somber note: he does a disservice to rape victims by using the phrase "accidental rapist." Can we stop using ther term "rape" as if it were just the far-end point on a continuum, and any expression of male sexuality short of it is some of rape lite? The vast majority of men would stop trying to get sex when they understand that a woman is not willing to proceed. A wall separates those men from the rapists. There is no "continuum," and rape is not "normalized" among men generally. There are rapists, and there are non-rapists.
Actually I did go to his post, read it, and then I responded "What horse$#!T"
I believe there is a "conflict of interest" in letting the Gender-Raunch community pervert our legal system in ways that don't jeopardize the Gender-Raunch. Many Gender-Raunch dislike hetero-sexuals (if you don't think so, read the literature, and attend gender-feminist college classes), and they are perverting the course of justice in ways that mostly effect college athletes, who get alot of hetero-sex.
Is it constitutional to allow gender-Raunch to be the driving force in "perverting the course of justice" in ways which keep Gender-Raunch immune from these perversions???
I read it too. It makes for a good story, but "accidental rapist" is not an appropriate title. Referring to himself as a rapist is way over the top.
What gets me is that when you go there to critize, why can't you keep it civil?
"What gets me is that when you go there to critize, why can't you keep it civil?"
I don't know who you mean, but I haven't commented there. I don't find much objectionable about it, except the title and the tone of touchy-feely sensitiveness that seems like so much pandering.
Post a Comment