Posted on 04/07/2010 12:13:32 PM PDT by abb
Duke University has instituted a new "sexual misconduct" policy that can render a student guilty of non-consensual sex simply because he or she is considered "powerful" on campus. The policy claims that "perceived power differentials may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion." Duke's new policy transforms students of both sexes into unwitting rapists simply because of the "atmosphere" or because one or more students are "intoxicated," no matter the degree. The policy also establishes unfair rules for judging sexual misconduct accusations. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is challenging the policy.
"Duke's new sexual misconduct policy could have been written by Mike Nifong," said FIRE Vice President Robert Shibley. "Members of the men's basketball team could be punished for consensual sexual activity simply because they are 'perceived' as more powerful than other students after winning the national championship. Students who engage in sexual behavior after a few beers could be found guilty of sexual misconduct towards each other. This is not just illogical and impractical, but insane. Given its experience during the lacrosse team rape hoax, Duke, of all schools, should know better than to institute such unjust rules about sexual misconduct."
The new policy was introduced at the beginning of the school year with fanfare from the Duke Women's Center—the same center that apologized for excluding pro-life students from event space in a case FIRE won last month. Women's Center Director Ada Gregory was quoted in Duke's student newspaper The Chronicle justifying the new policy, saying, "The higher [the] IQ, the more manipulative they are, the more cunning they are ... imagine the sex offenders we have here at Duke—cream of the crop." (In a follow-up letter to The Chronicle, Gregory claimed that the quote was inaccurate and did not reflect her views, but stood by her analysis that campuses like Duke are likely to harbor smarter sex offenders who are better able to outwit investigators.)
Duke's vastly overbroad definition of non-consensual sex puts nearly every student at risk of being found guilty of sexual misconduct. Students are said to be able to unintentionally coerce others into sexual activity through "perceived power differentials," which could include otherwise unremarkable and consensual liaisons between a varsity athlete and an average student, a senior and a freshman, or a student government member and a non-member.
Further, students are said to be unable to consent to sexual behavior when "intoxicated," regardless of their level of intoxication. Duke has turned mutually consensual sexual conduct, which might merely be poorly considered, into a punishable act. Adding to the confusion, if both parties are intoxicated at all, both are guilty of sexual misconduct, since neither can officially give consent. North Carolina law does not support this definition of consent.
"Of course, there is no way that everyone who was intoxicated during sexual activity, let alone 'perceived' as more powerful, is going to be charged with sexual misconduct," said Adam Kissel, Director of FIRE's Individual Rights Defense Program. "Add to that the provision about an unintentional atmosphere of coercion, and anyone can see that Duke's policy is impossible to rationalize or to fairly and equitably enforce. As a result, this policy effectively trivializes real sexual misconduct, which is a gravely serious crime."
The new policy even makes reporting of so-called sexual misconduct mandatory for any Duke employee who becomes aware of it, regardless of the wishes of the alleged victim.
Furthermore, Duke has made fair enforcement of the sexual misconduct policy even more difficult by establishing different procedures and even a different "jury" to judge sexual misconduct complaints. For instance, sexual misconduct charges are judged by two faculty or staff members and only one student, but all other offenses are judged by a panel of three students and two faculty or staff members. Duke fails to explain why a jury with a majority of one's peers is necessary for charges like assault or theft but not sexual misconduct.
Other problems in the sexual misconduct policy, detailed in FIRE's letter to Duke President Richard Brodhead of March 4, include giving the complainant more rights than the accused, requiring the results of a hearing to be kept secret in perpetuity even if one is found not guilty or is falsely accused, and allowing anonymous and third-party reporting so that the student may never be able to face his or her accuser.
FIRE wrote, "As a private university, Duke is not obliged to agree with the authors of the Bill of Rights about the value of the right to face one's accuser. Nevertheless, Duke ignores their wisdom at the peril of its own students and reputation." Duke has declined to respond to FIRE's letter in writing.
"More than any other school in the nation," Shibley said, "Duke should be aware that its students deserve the best possible rules and procedures for ensuring that rape and sexual misconduct charges are judged fairly. Sexual misconduct is a serious offense. Duke students deserve a policy under which true offenders will be punished but the innocent have nothing to fear."
FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation's colleges and universities. FIRE's efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America can be viewed at thefire.org.
The is no question that Duke handled the false rape allegations very badly. But as you stated, that was mainly due to Duke officials violating their own policies.
Also, “perceived or real power” had nothing to do with the stripper’s false allegations. She falsely claimed forcible rape, not that the LAX players coerced in into an invalid consent, with their magical LAX powers. If the allegation had been true, it would have been sexual misconduct (and much worse) under any policy.
Of course, the school, the race baiters and the media rushed to the wrong conclusion, assumning that some spoiled, rich white kids were far less credible than a stripper with a criminal record.
My point is the policy itself does not seem bad. Though you are correct that the policy is only as good as those who enforce it. It would seem to me that changing personnel would do much more good than changing the policy.
>> They already do - at UNC, 12 miles south <<
Yep, and just about any Duke man can testify that Chapel Hill coeds are much hotter!
Two of the ‘perceived’ differentials in power that liberals believe and have been used often in their arguments are power differential in gender (they don’t believe the term ‘sex’ when it comes to social issue) and race.
So, as a principle (since it’s part of the statement of principles), male gender and white race are seen as more powerful than any other groups. It means that any accusation brought by black female against white male would be deemed enough to be used against the white male, regardless of the fact.
So if Duke wanted to make a rule excluding all African Americans or make a rule that required homosexuals be immediately expelled or that did not allow any leftists to attend that would be ok? This “make its own rules” nonsense only applies if it fits the leftist agenda. Universities must comply with all kinds of government laws and regulations.
That is why Hillsdale College refuses to accept Federal Funding.
Of course Duke must comply with many rules and regulations, but there is nothing in that policy that would seem to violate any such regulations. As I said, Duke could go much farther with its policy. Some religious schools forbid any sex outside of marriage on their campuses and it is perfectly legal for them to do so. I remember, maybe 10 years ago, a (non-Mormon) BYU football player was expelled for having consensual sex on campus.
At Manhttan College, maybe 10 years ago, 2 star basketball players were expelled for having consensual group sex with one or more female players in the dorm.
It was just a referrence to school cool jocks. Definitely targets for this one.
I looked for John Semmens name after the first sentence. But damn, abb...it's not satire. It's true! Pick my jaw up off of the floor.
Sooooo.....Joe BigManOnCampus takes Little Miss Nobody for a beer or 2. They both have a buzz, but are not shit-faced. They have sex. Little Miss Nobody asks “Will you call me?” Joe BigManOnCampus promises he will call her in the morning. She watches her phone. He does not call. She sees him with Buffy Homecoming Queen and is crushed.
Joe BigmanOnCampus is guilty of sexual misconduct (rape) because Little Miss Nobody would have never slept with him if he was Joe Schmo.
What is going on down there? This policy operates under the assumption that woman can not be held responsible for any decision they make. As a woman I am outraged.
.
Excellent!
They might as well tell the freshmen to leave their penises at home. Ouch...
They are afraid of the other half of Durham.
“Why don’t we not get drunk and screw?”
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
The actual problem is not Duke's latest attempt to - well, I'm not sure what they're attempting to do. The problem is that college students, or a lot of them, seem to think that the purpose of attending an institution of higher learning is to get drunk and screw. Party time. A dissolute life of irresponsible hedonism is not only a poor atmosphere for learning skills and wisdom (are either taught at universities?), but a very poor foundation for adult life.
Throughout history most people were considered adults by late teens, or at least by 20 or so; this prolonged adolescence of "party time" throughout the 20s leads to messed up people and ridiculous problems such as illustrated by whatever Duke is trying to do.
Marriages work out better when both husband and wife haven't had a dozen (or more) sex partners already, with possible attendant diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
An argument might be made: "You can't expect young people not to have sex". My answer: "Can you expect anyone not to have sex? Are we animals that have no self control, discrimination or wisdom? Aren't married couples expected to control their impulses too?"
Another point is that it isn't really natural or historical for marriage to be put off until the late 20s or even later. Why wait? If young people were not encouraged or expected to act like Beavis and Butthead until 25, they might be responsible enough to marry a lot younger.
That needs a telethon or something!
I have been around the block a few times...and I don't ever recall a relationship where the female did not have the "power" when it came to sex.
If I had a child that was thinking of going to a University, I would have them think twice before going to Duke.Facing criminal charges simply because of one’s social standing is anti-American.
Time for everyone to just stop going to Duke.
They are putting their lives and their futures in harm’s way. They’re just about selling their soul to the devil by agreeing to put themselves under such a restrictive and misguided and perverted policy.
There is nothing that school has to offer that would even begin to compensate for the risk they are taking attending there.
Anyone who even applies there, much less attends, there is a total IDIOT.
(Syracuse University has a GREAT LAX team if someone is that interested in it.)
Ivory tower academes are the most clueless of all people on the planet.
In light of the promotion of sex to the teen culture through the handing out of condoms and the legalization of abortion and the demands for unlimited abortions, this whole policy is ludicrous.
The entire liberal culture is encouraging the very behavior it is condemning and penalizing.
Their heads would explode if Randy “Macho Man” Savage visited the campus, doing nothing but walking by.
Not gonna doubtcha.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.