Stanford man's account of being sexually assaulted

[Tom Sawyer]

Okay then. If two Stanford students have been drinking, any sexual contact between them will be deemed non-consensual by the university. So they're both in violation of the Student Code of Conduct for sexing while drunk even though one was being demanding and the other was being kind.

Well, the issue with that is that is that it becomes just one more way to discourage reporting rapes. If someone rapes you but you'd been drinking too, having the risk of suspension or expulsion hanging over your head when deciding whether or not to report them is a thing that they don't need to deal with.

 

[Arctish]

Okay then. If two Stanford students have been drinking, any sexual contact between them will be deemed non-consensual by the university. So they're both in violation of the Student Code of Conduct for sexing while drunk even though one was being demanding and the other was being kind.

Well, the issue with that is that is that it becomes just one more way to discourage reporting rapes. If someone rapes you but you'd been drinking too, having the risk of suspension or expulsion hanging over your head when deciding whether or not to report them is a thing that they don't need to deal with.

I agree. It can be very difficult to keep those channels of communication open when the victim of a rape has been doing something he or she should not have done. But that doesn't mean the Code of Conduct should not be enforced.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, the issue with that is that is that it becomes just one more way to discourage reporting rapes. If someone rapes you but you'd been drinking too, having the risk of suspension or expulsion hanging over your head when deciding whether or not to report them is a thing that they don't need to deal with.

I agree. It can be very difficult to keep those channels of communication open when the victim of a rape has been doing something he or she should not have done. But that doesn't mean the Code of Conduct should not be enforced.

I'd say that it's a reason to not have stupid things in the Code of Conduct.

 

[Arctish]

I agree. It can be very difficult to keep those channels of communication open when the victim of a rape has been doing something he or she should not have done. But that doesn't mean the Code of Conduct should not be enforced.

I'd say that it's a reason to not have stupid things in the Code of Conduct.

What's stupid about defining consent in a way that even stupid people can understand, and even clever people cannot exploit to their advantage?

If you and/or your paramour have been drinking, wait a few hours until you're both sober before you have sex or risk being suspended or expelled from Stanford. What's the problem with that?

Can you only have sex if you're drunk? That's a problem, but the problem's not with the Code of Conduct.

Can you only have sex if your potential partner is drunk? That's also a problem, but that problem's not with the Code of Conduct.

 

[bilby]

I'd say that it's a reason to not have stupid things in the Code of Conduct.

What's stupid about defining consent in a way that even stupid people can understand, and even clever people cannot exploit to their advantage?

If you and/or your paramour have been drinking, wait a few hours until you're both sober before you have sex or risk being suspended or expelled from Stanford. What's the problem with that?

That would be the part where a university takes it upon themselves to regulate lawful acts by consenting adults that have no impact on their learning, and that take place outside the university.

The idea that a university could and should dictate its students' lifestyle choices is, quite literally, medieval.

It is irrelevant whether or not the behaviour of the students in question is morally right; If that behaviour is unlawful, then the students should be dealt with by the normal process of the law. If it is not unlawful, the university has no moral right to jurisdiction, and their right to act at all should be limited to lobbying for a change in the law.

It is wrong to deny any person access to an education on the basis of extra-legal regulations imposed by an institution of learning.

It is wrong for an institution of learning to impose any rules about the off-campus sex lives of students, beyond 'Don't break the law'.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What's stupid about defining consent in a way that even stupid people can understand, and even clever people cannot exploit to their advantage?

If you and/or your paramour have been drinking, wait a few hours until you're both sober before you have sex or risk being suspended or expelled from Stanford. What's the problem with that?

That would be the part where a university takes it upon themselves to regulate lawful acts by consenting adults that have no impact on their learning, and that take place outside the university.

The idea that a university could and should dictate its students' lifestyle choices is, quite literally, medieval.

It is irrelevant whether or not the behaviour of the students in question is morally right; If that behaviour is unlawful, then the students should be dealt with by the normal process of the law. If it is not unlawful, the university has no moral right to jurisdiction, and their right to act at all should be limited to lobbying for a change in the law.

It is wrong to deny any person access to an education on the basis of extra-legal regulations imposed by an institution of learning.

Ya, I would have responded with something that sounded kind of like that but wasn't as intelligently written.

Then I'd have made a penis joke or something.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why ARE these schools such busy-bodies, poking their noses into everything having nothing to do with them?

Rape should be a police matter, not a university one.

 

[Arctish]

What's stupid about defining consent in a way that even stupid people can understand, and even clever people cannot exploit to their advantage?

If you and/or your paramour have been drinking, wait a few hours until you're both sober before you have sex or risk being suspended or expelled from Stanford. What's the problem with that?

That would be the part where a university takes it upon themselves to regulate lawful acts by consenting adults that have no impact on their learning, and that take place outside the university.

The idea that a university could and should dictate its students' lifestyle choices is, quite literally, medieval.

It's not medieval. It's business.

A university and a student have a business arrangement. The university provides instruction and facilities, the student pays for the education and access. As long as each do what their contract stipulates, everything is fine. But just because a university has accepted a student doesn't mean the university has to put up with whatever that student chooses to do. The university can and should protect it's reputation and its ability to attract new students. If a student engages in activities that put the university in disrepute, or interferes with other students' ability to learn, the university can and should expel the student causing problems.

I know a guy whose roommate at college refused to bathe. The roommate was expelled, even though it is not against the law to be stinky. I know of another student who was kicked out of the dorms and put on probation for making too much noise after midnight on weekdays. At the University of Alaska in Anchorage, a student can be expelled for throwing snowballs at moose. None of these violations are criminal, but the rules against them are enforced because they have an impact on the ability of the school to provide a safe, high-quality learning environment for their students.

It is irrelevant whether or not the behaviour of the students in question is morally right; If that behaviour is unlawful, then the students should be dealt with by the normal process of the law. If it is not unlawful, the university has no moral right to jurisdiction, and their right to act at all should be limited to lobbying for a change in the law.

It is wrong to deny any person access to an education on the basis of extra-legal regulations imposed by an institution of learning.

It is wrong for an institution of learning to impose any rules about the off-campus sex lives of students, beyond 'Don't break the law'.

California law states that universities and colleges like Stanford must adopt student conduct policies requiring “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity” as a condition for state funding. Sobriety is not mandated, but Stanford is not out of line by defining consent as something only sober people can give. There are plenty of court cases where drunken consent has been ruled invalid. Stanford is on firm legal footing by including it as part of the definition of consent as it applies to their Code of Conduct. And requiring students to adhere to a code of conduct has been around for as long as the U.S. has had universities.

 

[Arctish]

Why ARE these schools such busy-bodies, poking their noses into everything having nothing to do with them?

Rape should be a police matter, not a university one.

Having a reputation for turning a blind eye to sexual assaults on campus is bad for both enrollment and attracting funding.

 

[bilby]

That would be the part where a university takes it upon themselves to regulate lawful acts by consenting adults that have no impact on their learning, and that take place outside the university.

The idea that a university could and should dictate its students' lifestyle choices is, quite literally, medieval.

It's not medieval. It's business.

A university and a student have a business arrangement.

See, now that's another problem right there.

Providing citizens with education is one of those things best done without the involvement of the market.

If problems arise because universities are businesses when they should be being schools, then that's not an excuse for those problems; it is their cause.

 

[Arctish]

It's not medieval. It's business.

A university and a student have a business arrangement.

See, now that's another problem right there.

Providing citizens with education is one of those things best done without the involvement of the market.

If problems arise because universities are businesses when they should be being schools, then that's not an excuse for those problems; it is their cause.

There are advantages and disadvantages. It's a trade-off.

My mother never finished high school but she was able to enroll in college when her kids were grown and got her degree shortly before she turned 60. The business of higher education has no problem with a paying student being past her prime working years even if the benefit to society is slight.

 

[Derec]

What's stupid about defining consent in a way that even stupid people can understand, and even clever people cannot exploit to their advantage?

It's stupid to define "consent" in a way that has nothing to do with actual consent. If Stanford apparatchiks or California legislators decided to define "consent" as only possible in missionary position or with lights off would you support that too since you only care that the definition is simple enough that "even stupid people can understand" it rather than being in any way related to actual consent?
Besides, Stanford student are smart. Definitely much smarter than Stanford administrators.

If you and/or your paramour have been drinking, wait a few hours until you're both sober before you have sex or risk being suspended or expelled from Stanford. What's the problem with that?

Are you sure that "a few hours" would even be enough for the administrators? Besides, why should you have to refrain from engaging in consensual sex just to appease some unrealistic expectations by ridiculous administrators who probably have Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon books on their bookshelves?

Can you only have sex if you're drunk? That's a problem, but the problem's not with the Code of Conduct.

The problem is the Code of Conduct defining consensual sex as non-consenual.

 

[Derec]

Having a reputation for turning a blind eye to sexual assaults on campus is bad for both enrollment and attracting funding.

Except that merely being somewhat intoxicated while having sex has absolutely nothing to do with 'sexual assault'. It's like imposing prohibition because bar brawls are bad.

 

[Togo]

See, now that's another problem right there.

Providing citizens with education is one of those things best done without the involvement of the market.

If problems arise because universities are businesses when they should be being schools, then that's not an excuse for those problems; it is their cause.

There are advantages and disadvantages. It's a trade-off.

My mother never finished high school but she was able to enroll in college when her kids were grown and got her degree shortly before she turned 60. The business of higher education has no problem with a paying student being past her prime working years even if the benefit to society is slight.

Nor does state-paid higher education, as graduate students in the Uk (before the recent introduction of tution fees) can testify.

I can't see any reason to see this as specific to running the university as a business.

I don't see any reason why the university has to make up it's own standard for consent, rather than using the legal one, even under the constraints of the California requirements.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Justin admitted that he was drunk and looking for sexual contact that night, so he was already planning on violating the school's policy.

 

[dismal]

Justin admitted that he was drunk and looking for sexual contact that night, so he was already planning on violating the school's policy.

No, technically that means he was planning to lure someone else into breaking the school's policy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I agree. It can be very difficult to keep those channels of communication open when the victim of a rape has been doing something he or she should not have done. But that doesn't mean the Code of Conduct should not be enforced.

I'd say that it's a reason to not have stupid things in the Code of Conduct.

Exactly. It also explains why the "rapists" get slaps on the wrist--they aren't rapists in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd say that it's a reason to not have stupid things in the Code of Conduct.

What's stupid about defining consent in a way that even stupid people can understand, and even clever people cannot exploit to their advantage?

If you and/or your paramour have been drinking, wait a few hours until you're both sober before you have sex or risk being suspended or expelled from Stanford. What's the problem with that?

Can you only have sex if you're drunk? That's a problem, but the problem's not with the Code of Conduct.

Can you only have sex if your potential partner is drunk? That's also a problem, but that problem's not with the Code of Conduct.

Because it basically criminalizes the singles bar--something that has existed for a long time without being considered rape.

 

[Arctish]

It's stupid to define "consent" in a way that has nothing to do with actual consent.

It's stupid to define "actual consent" or "genuine consent" or "valid consent" as something you can get from intoxicated, inebriated, or flat out drunk people. It's stupid to define consent in a way that allows a sexual predator to slip drugs into another person's diet soda and then claim he/she was given "actual consent" for a sex act even though their target was clearly impaired.

If Stanford apparatchiks or California legislators decided to define "consent" as only possible in missionary position or with lights off would you support that too since you only care that the definition is simple enough that "even stupid people can understand" it rather than being in any way related to actual consent?

If they said consent = missionary position, I would wonder what the heck they'd been smoking. If they said consent = mutual decision on which position to take, I would agree completely. Consent is not a matter of style, it's a matter of mutual understanding and agreement. Things that impair the ability to understand impair the ability to give consent.

Besides, Stanford student are smart. Definitely much smarter than Stanford administrators.

If you and/or your paramour have been drinking, wait a few hours until you're both sober before you have sex or risk being suspended or expelled from Stanford. What's the problem with that?

Are you sure that "a few hours" would even be enough for the administrators? Besides, why should you have to refrain from engaging in consensual sex just to appease some unrealistic expectations by ridiculous administrators who probably have Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon books on their bookshelves?

Can you only have sex if you're drunk? That's a problem, but the problem's not with the Code of Conduct.

The problem is the Code of Conduct defining consensual sex as non-consenual.

No. The problem here is sexual predators using things like date rape drugs and exploiting ambiguity in the definition of "consent" to prey on students. You can blame Dworkin and MacKinnon for cock-blocking guys just looking for a little fun, but give credit where it's due: men like this guy and the frat brothers at Phi Kappa Psi, and all the others who have drugged students and raped them, have done more to change the definition of consent that Dworkin ever dreamed of doing.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Those actually have nothing to do with definitions of consent. They're straight up rape.

 

[Arctish]

Those actually have nothing to do with definitions of consent. They're straight up rape.

I believe they are the reason universities and colleges are grappling with this issue.

How do you tell the difference between someone willingly under the influence of alcohol and someone unwittingly under the influence of GHB? If you can't tell the difference, then the only safe course of action is hands-off until s/he sobers up, because if you have sex and it turns out s/he was drugged, it's your ass on the line.