JMU Punishes Sexual Assault With Expulsion -- After Graduation

[RavenSky]

So is it a crime or not? You and RavenSky seem to disagree.

Whether it is a crime is irrelevant. JMU disciplined the 3 people for violating school policy.

Except they didn't really get disciplined either. It appears the school fully acknowledges that the three men violated school policy, but since the "expulsion" doesn't happen until after graduation (& one of the boys has another year left to go), it amounts to no discipline at all.

Geeze, I thought Derec would be happy these men got away with their sexual "prank" on the woman. I shouldn't, however, be surprised that instead he simply denies video evidence and denies that anyone other than the male perpetrators could possibly ever tell the truth.

 

[laughing dog]

So is it a crime or not? You and RavenSky seem to disagree.

Whether it is a crime is irrelevant. JMU disciplined the 3 people for violating school policy.

Except they didn't really get disciplined either. It appears the school fully acknowledges that the three men violated school policy, but since the "expulsion" doesn't happen until after graduation (& one of the boys has another year left to go), it amounts to no discipline at all.

. Do you realize how hurtful it is for frat boys to be unable to return as alumni on homecoming and frat events to relive their glory days?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It appears the school fully acknowledges that the three men violated school policy, but since the "expulsion" doesn't happen until after graduation (& one of the boys has another year left to go), it amounts to no discipline at all.

No, the school has loads of discipline. Think of the lost tuition dollars if they had expelled these boys.

Think of the dollars.

Won't somebody think of the dollars.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

James Madison University punished three fraternity members for sexually assaulting a female student and sharing their video of the attack by banning them from campus -- after they graduate.

The school found the men responsible for sexual assault and harassment in the spring break 2013 attack on Sarah Butters, and determined that they shared the video widely with others on the JMU campus in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The unusual "expulsion after graduation" sanction allowed two of the men to graduate on time in May. The third plans to remain on campus for his senior year in 2014-15.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/james-madison-university-sexual-assault_n_5509163.html

So there is absolutely no question that these three assaulted this woman because they video'd it and shared the video... but received effectively no punishment.

For every case of a student being expelled for sexual assault, there are dozens more like this wherein effectively no punishment is given.

Or else the video isn't as damning as your source presents it as. The expulsion after graduation makes me think the university knows it's on very thin ice and doesn't want to get reamed in court when they lose.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

 

[Toni]

Also try reading the original link in the OP if you are interested in the synopsis.

I'm not interested in the unsourced synopsis, I am interested in the video.

There are two issues which might reasonably result in punishment of students:

1. Sexual assault.
2. Recording the assault and sharing it ong other people.

Either action reasonably would create a hostile environment for the student whose assault was recorded and shared. Actually, these actions created a hostile environment for other students who must surely wonder if they might be subjected to such attacks and have the attack distributed over social media. The school had an obligation to act. That it acted in such a weak and ineffectual way is grounds for investigation and sanctions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

OK, so we have a video, no one here has seen, and umm... there seems to be a lot of opinions on both sides based, at best, on extrapolating the one or two data points that exist (ie claim, college action, lack of criminal charges).

I don't know, I think I'd like most positive evidence before getting anywhere close to having a judgment on this.

All I know is that I hope that if something terrible happens to my daughter in the future, my first words are "Well, I hope you have video evidence, because people like Derec will otherwise say you are a lying bitch."

 

[RavenSky]

OK, so we have a video, no one here has seen, and umm... there seems to be a lot of opinions on both sides based, at best, on extrapolating the one or two data points that exist (ie claim, college action, lack of criminal charges).

I don't know, I think I'd like most positive evidence before getting anywhere close to having a judgment on this.

All I know is that I hope that if something terrible happens to my daughter in the future, my first words are "Well, I hope you have video evidence, because people like Derec will otherwise say you are a lying bitch."

Not even video evidence will be enough, though. Apparently, people like Derec and Loren require a full and unequivocal confession from the rapist that he intended to rape the woman - otherwise it could be that he just misunderstood a "no" for a "yes" and that doesn't count as rape either.

 

[Toni]

OK, so we have a video, no one here has seen, and umm... there seems to be a lot of opinions on both sides based, at best, on extrapolating the one or two data points that exist (ie claim, college action, lack of criminal charges).

I don't know, I think I'd like most positive evidence before getting anywhere close to having a judgment on this.

All I know is that I hope that if something terrible happens to my daughter in the future, my first words are "Well, I hope you have video evidence, because people like Derec will otherwise say you are a lying bitch."

Not even video evidence will be enough, though. Apparently, people like Derec and Loren require a full and unequivocal confession from the rapist that he intended to rape the woman - otherwise it could be that he just misunderstood a "no" for a "yes" and that doesn't count as rape either.

I don't know about anyone else but all of this clamor to see video tapes of women being sexually assaulted just kind of creeps me out.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not even video evidence will be enough, though. Apparently, people like Derec and Loren require a full and unequivocal confession from the rapist that he intended to rape the woman - otherwise it could be that he just misunderstood a "no" for a "yes" and that doesn't count as rape either.

I'm questioning the video in this case because the punishment is awfully light compared to what the video supposedly depicts. When you see a punishment that's way light that should be making you think that perhaps the situation isn't what it sounds like.



As for that other video--I'm only saying it's not proof because they did play rape fantasy games apparently without a safeword. How can the camera tell real rape from rape fantasy?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know about anyone else but all of this clamor to see video tapes of women being sexually assaulted just kind of creeps me out.

We are asking for the video in this case because we think it doesn't show what it supposedly shows.

 

[RavenSky]

I'm questioning the video in this case because the punishment is awfully light compared to what the video supposedly depicts. When you see a punishment that's way light that should be making you think that perhaps the situation isn't what it sounds like.

The video "supposedly" depicts these clowns pulling off the woman's bathing suit top at a beach party. They then shared the video with other students.

In other words, a "prank" that doesn't sound like it rises to e level of criminal prosecution, but is clearly in violation of normal university behavior policies. Even if you want to dismiss the removing of her bathing suit top (???), the fact alone that they shared the video of her humiliation should be enough to take disciplinary action that does not include forcing the woman to withdraw from the university because they've allowed the men to remain.

Unfortunately, you and Derec seem to have the attitude that - in the cases of sexual misconduct only - unless the offense meets the standard for criminal prosecution, the universities should not be allowed to enact any disciplinary action at all.

As for that other video--I'm only saying it's not proof because they did play rape fantasy games apparently without a safeword. How can the camera tell real rape from rape fantasy?

Even the husband testified that she said "no". I don't care how many scenarios you concoct to attempt to excuse his rape of her, there is no genuinely consensual BSDM relationship in the world wherein the dominant partner makes that sort of "mistake", and if s/he does, it is rape. For you to keep insisting otherwise indicates that it is you who really does not understand the dynamics of BSDM.

 

[laughing dog]

Even the husband testified that she said "no". I don't care how many scenarios you concoct to attempt to excuse his rape of her, there is no genuinely consensual BSDM relationship in the world wherein the dominant partner makes that sort of "mistake", and if s/he does, it is rape. For you to keep insisting otherwise indicates that it is you who really does not understand the dynamics of BSDM.

I'd argue he doesn't understand rape. It appears he thinks that rape requires the intent to rape because the defense he is offering ("How was he to know she meant no") makes no sense without that presumption.

 

[Derec]

In other words, a "prank" that doesn't sound like it rises to e level of criminal prosecution, but is clearly in violation of normal university behavior policies.

So now we are down from "sexual assault" (see thread title) to a mere "prank". And does a non-criminal prank really require a puinishment so severe as an expulsion, especially with demands of immediate expulsion?
Also the reason what exactly is on the video is important because obviously removing someone's top can be either consensual or non-consensual. Relying on the synopsis provided by the accuser or thinking the decision by the university kangaroo court must be correct (when so many are so obviously wrong) is highly naive.

Even if you want to dismiss the removing of her bathing suit top (???), the fact alone that they shared the video of her humiliation should be enough to take disciplinary action that does not include forcing the woman to withdraw from the university because they've allowed the men to remain.

Nobody is forcing her to withdraw from the university. If she wants to withdraw because the video is already circulating around campus, immediately removing those accused of taking/sharing it would not remove all the copies of the video either.

Unfortunately, you and Derec seem to have the attitude that - in the cases of sexual misconduct only - unless the offense meets the standard for criminal prosecution, the universities should not be allowed to enact any disciplinary action at all.

If you use the same name as a criminal violation, to wit "sexual assault" then it should certainly correspond to criminal violation of "sexual assault". If it is so minor as to not be a crime then a disciplinary action well short of expulsion would be appropriate.

Even the husband testified that she said "no". I don't care how many scenarios you concoct to attempt to excuse his rape of her, there is no genuinely consensual BSDM relationship in the world wherein the dominant partner makes that sort of "mistake", and if s/he does, it is rape. For you to keep insisting otherwise indicates that it is you who really does not understand the dynamics of BSDM.

It is my understanding that forms of resistance and saying no are used as part of role playing a BDSM scene necessitating separate safe word/action in the first place.

 

[RavenSky]

So now we are down from "sexual assault" (see thread title) to a mere "prank".

No Derec, pulling a woman's top off in public is a sexual assault. I called it a "prank" specifically in quotes because that is what some of those defending and minimizing the men's actions are calling it. All I have said is that not all actions necessarily rise to the level of criminal prosecution and prison, and I'd be shocked if you disagree.

The strange man in the nightclub who shoved his hand under my skirt and grabbed my crotch trying to finger my vagina while I was standing against a wall minding my own business did, in fact, sexually assault me. He was thrown out of the club and his membership was revoked (which meant he was banned from the most popular club in the city forever, similar to a university expulsion). Is it your position that this man should have also been criminally prosecuted and put in prison for a few years? I think not.

Or perhaps you are arguing that what he did to me didn't matter, that my bodily integrity doesn't matter, and that nothing should have happened to that man. Is that what you think Derec?

And does a non-criminal prank really require a puinishment so severe as an expulsion, especially with demands of immediate expulsion?

yes Derec, it does. See above

Also the reason what exactly is on the video is important because obviously removing someone's top can be either consensual or non-consensual.

As has already been demonstrated, it won't matter what the video shows because you will insist that it was consensual and that the woman is a lying bitch

 

[RavenSky]

nm

 

[Sabine Grant]

So now we are down from "sexual assault" (see thread title) to a mere "prank". And does a non-criminal prank really require a puinishment so severe as an expulsion, especially with demands of immediate expulsion?

Derec 2 things at play here :

1) Those frat boys DISMISSING her non consent to being physically handled in a manner which can only convey a sexual motivation. I am not sure how you understand "groping" and attempting to unclothe a party who is NOT consenting to such handling of their anatomy. Personally, I understand it as a violation of her bodily integrity.

2) The fact they then boasted about the above by having filmed it and circulated it and again without her consent.

You may think that such conduct should not result in a disciplinary action excluding the culprits from further interaction with and participating in the community of students attending JMU, but I do.

We are talking here about the MENTALITY of those frat boys and one which is incompatible with maintaining a climate of safety and well being for the student body.

Even if you want to dismiss the removing of her bathing suit top (???), the fact alone that they shared the video of her humiliation should be enough to take disciplinary action that does not include forcing the woman to withdraw from the university because they've allowed the men to remain.

Nobody is forcing her to withdraw from the university. If she wants to withdraw because the video is already circulating around campus, immediately removing those accused of taking/sharing it would not remove all the copies of the video either.

Are you suggesting that individuals who have been victimized or abused in any way shape or form are to bear or cope with the continued presence of the parties who victimized or abused them while they share the same environment?

Let's me see how consistent you are about deploring their expulsion which is bound to remove them completely from the same environment they share with the victim (while an expulsion also guarantees 100% protection exercised on the entire student body, protection from being subjected from any recidivism on the part of those frat boys) :

- do you have similar reservations about the termination of employment of a male employee who would grope and attempt to unclothe a female employee who does NOT consent? Or do you think "other disciplinary actions" would be more appropriate?

Unfortunately, you and Derec seem to have the attitude that - in the cases of sexual misconduct only - unless the offense meets the standard for criminal prosecution, the universities should not be allowed to enact any disciplinary action at all.

If you use the same name as a criminal violation, to wit "sexual assault" then it should certainly correspond to criminal violation of "sexual assault". If it is so minor as to not be a crime then a disciplinary action well short of expulsion would be appropriate.

Again why placing on the victimized party the expectation that they are to be exposed to the continued presence of the victimizing culprits by NOT removing them from the same environment they share?

Even the husband testified that she said "no". I don't care how many scenarios you concoct to attempt to excuse his rape of her, there is no genuinely consensual BSDM relationship in the world wherein the dominant partner makes that sort of "mistake", and if s/he does, it is rape. For you to keep insisting otherwise indicates that it is you who really does not understand the dynamics of BSDM.

It is my understanding that forms of resistance and saying no are used as part of role playing a BDSM scene necessitating separate safe word/action in the first place.

It has been brought up that BDSM adepts insure that the non dominant party will remain able to convey or signify "stop" in a manner which cannot be confused for being part of the role playing. In that case, she was left UNABLE to do so. Her husband (as the dominant role playing party) took NO precautions to give her a way to signify or convey "stop" during the role playing activities. His dismissing the reality that she still has the right to signify or convey "stop" at any point of the role playing activities.

 

[Angry Floof]

Derec's world! Derec's world!

 

[Toni]

First of all, unwanted sexual contact without consent is sexual assault. The acts described in the OP would most likely be forth degree, a misdemeanor. That is the first act that should require some action from the university. The act of filming the assault is the second act; distributing it is a third act. The last two might not even be considered a misdemeanor but they, along with the first act would be considered creating a hostile work environment and as such, the university is required to act.

Lets take a similar scenario: a youngs male student is at a party and like everyone else, he is drunk. He goes to the bathroom and three other students crowd in and start trying to get his shirt off. They succeed and begin groping his chest and nipples and try to slip off his swim trunks but don't actually succeed. Our student protests throughout and is clearly drunk and clearly trying to stop the other party goers. One of the partygoers is recording these events and shares via various social media. A few days later the young man is approached by friends who show him the video and tell him it's been shared everywhere. The student is upset and embarrassed. In the cafe., others point and whisper and laugh.

What should happen to the party goers who removed his shirt, fondled him and shared the video ?

Does it matter that prospective employers see the young man and form an unfavorable impression?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There are two issues which might reasonably result in punishment of students:

1. Sexual assault.
2. Recording the assault and sharing it ong other people.

This here is an excellent point. Even if what was done wasnt rape or assault, recording the tape and distributing it without her permission would to me be good grounds by itself for action against these boys.

What have the boys said in their defence? Have they denied either groping her against her will or the taping of the event without her permission?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The strange man in the nightclub who shoved his hand under my skirt and grabbed my crotch trying to finger my vagina while I was standing against a wall minding my own business did, in fact, sexually assault me. He was thrown out of the club and his membership was revoked (which meant he was banned from the most popular club in the city forever, similar to a university expulsion). Is it your position that this man should have also been criminally prosecuted and put in prison for a few years? I think not.

If it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did that, and that he did it knowing or reasonably ought to have been knowing, that you didnt invite it, then yes, he should have been criminally sanctioned.

I am surprised you disagree.