"...perceived power differentials may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion."
I received an email today from Robert L. Shibley, the Vice President of FIRE about a press release warning of a new Duke University policy that can make you a rapist without you even knowing it:
It seems to me that the most powerful group on Duke's campus is the group of feminists that got this policy passed. If you have sex with one of them, you have obviously been raped and need to file charges.
If you would like to let Richard H. Brodhead, President of Duke University, know how you feel about this new policy, you can send him an email here. I just sent an email and I hope you will too.
DURHAM, N.C., April 7, 2010—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.
It seems to me that the most powerful group on Duke's campus is the group of feminists that got this policy passed. If you have sex with one of them, you have obviously been raped and need to file charges.
If you would like to let Richard H. Brodhead, President of Duke University, know how you feel about this new policy, you can send him an email here. I just sent an email and I hope you will too.
Labels: men's rights (or lack thereof), political correctness
posted by Helen at 1:24 PM
61 Comments:
Good God. This is a joke.... isn't it?
I'm sure that somehow, faculty who sleeps with their students are exempt from this new policy.
sonicfrog,
I wish it were. I can't believe Duke could be this careless, but then look who we're talking about here.
Why would any parent send a male student to that campus?
I wonder if the Duke feminists are more powerful than those of the UC system. The UC feminists, led by a woman from UCD (my alma mater, I am ashamed to admit) got Larry Summers bounced from a speaking engagement before the UC Regents.
I remember when the HR folks came to our grad school to talk about that kind of stuff. We had an active men's group in the school, and the lady heard a respectful earfull.
The bottom line is that a person's perceptions are not necessarily grounded in reality. Thus, this type of postmodernist claptrap "empowers" borderlines and other personality disordered women to savage innocent men's lives.
You would think that Duke would have learned a small lesson, given their recent experience with an antisocial personality disordered stripper, but it is after all Dook.
As long as the victim feminists hold sway, this is our future.
Trey
Here is something else.
Consider that the basketball team just won the NCAA tournament. Think of their status among the student body right now. Given that a good percentage of the player are going to have sex with someone, either girlfriends, strangers (maybe a boyfriend or two) in the next few days... Well, there could be a whole industry of arrests and lawsuits based on the success of an athletic team or program.
Apparently Duke is determined that n one be exonerated of rape charges ever again.
I wonder though, is the rape caused this unintentional perceived atmosphere of possible coercion "rape-rape" or simply the more prosaic "rape"?
Before the Lacrosse incident two of my children visited Duke to evaluate as a potential college choice. They considered the social atmosphere oppressive and the academic competition unhealthily stressful
Both had distinguished academic careers elsewhere and are even today astonished at the accuracy of their impression of Duke at the time.
Just make students pledge to be chaste and be done with it.
I'm actually happy to see Duke make this an out-and-out bylaw. It's something that the Duke administration has clearly believed for a long time now.
Of course, now that Duke administration has said flat-out that they think all white men are rapists, we'll see what it does to the enrollment. But hey, at least they're finally living up to the courage of their convictions.
Luke said...
Why would any parent send a male student to that campus?
Why would any parent send a female student to that campus, which apprently is hellbent on teaching her that all normal relations between sexes are violent and abnormal?
"They considered the social atmosphere oppressive"
From what I have read, Duke's social scene is highly structured, something like high school meets typical Southern society - there are the jocks and Greeks, and all the other groups below that. In these groups, admission and movement are very tightly controlled.
This pyramid is part of the reason there were enough loud critics of the lacrosse team to make all that noise. When a top dog gets in trouble all the people underneath will be gunning to take him down. This "power rape" rule is more of the same.
> If you have sex with one of them, you have obviously been raped...
That's the only way I'd have sex with one of them.
I realize this is very crass, but lots of guys - myself included - got very drunk in college and ended up sleeping with truly ugly and revolting girls only to wake up next to them and feel very disgusted with ourselves. Good looking, popular guys are most certainly vulnerable to unattractive girls more than willing to seize the opportunity. How is this any different aside from not fitting the feminist narrative?
Duke is right that a power differential can lead to greatly harming the weak. Such as Duke admin and professors did, mostly without consequence, to some students who they falsely destroyed.
They almost got those men sent to prison, where we all know they would have faced a realistic risk of being actually raped. And that was something some of the CHEERED.
so, to avoid fake rape, they endorse real rape. And what this really is about is how they hate white people. I've met so many Duke students, and they are either alienated from their school, or they are racists who think whites should "build a bridge and get over it" when they are treated worse than other races (And that is a direct quote from a law school classmate from Duke, who proudly mentioned she was from Duke even during the Lacrosse hysteria).
These are the same people who enslaved blacks and segregated our people, and freak at the idea of the government not knowing our race. These are the same people who have been motivated by hate and derision at some 'bad' race, all throughout human history. They don't think they are, and actually use their racism to explain that. 'It was "you" white people' who did that. No, it was the fraternity of people who gain power from hatred.
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.
So, if both people have been drinking ("no matter the degree"), they're both rapists? How does that work?
Practical jokers have a huge power differential. Just not with women.
So, if both people have been drinking ("no matter the degree"), they're both rapists? How does that work?
I think we know that the intent of this is directed at men. They're simply too obtuse and blinded by their own dogma to see the obvious implications.
Did Duke hire the disbarred Mike Nifong as provost and presidential heir apparent?
Does it follow that Brodhead is a rapist?
"It's something that the Duke administration has clearly believed for a long time now."
Yep. They're obviously still pissed that the case against the lacrosse players fell apart so spectacularly, and took one of their main political backers with it. So now they are going to take revenge on the student body at large.
I thought Andrea Dworkin had passed away some time ago. Her spirit festers on, it seems.
Looking back, I don't feel so bad about my lack of sex life when I was an undergrad at Duke...
I'm not going off topic here, bear with me. Remember we were discussing speed traps and red light cameras? Well, a month ago my city decided that the speed cameras and the red light cameras weren't enough. Now we're installing stop light cameras, and they are about to go everywhere.
So yesterday I started practicing my new 3 second stops at stop signs. A big SUV in back of me grew frustrated and honked its horn. So I made it a 5 second stop. Are these revenue-generating cameras fair? Probably not. Can I do anything about them? Eh, I doubt it is worth the effort.
Getting back to the point. Just like our cameras, universities may have lost their way. I'm not sure making a stink about it is worth it. It might be easier to stay sober, keep your pants zipped and keep your nose in the books rather than playing beer pong at the frat house and trying to bed as many sex partners as possible while in school. It's a new day.
Well. That should put an end to women attending Duke merely to get their MRS degrees. Right? Right?
Let me get this straight..... you're a paranoid, under-developed, emotional nut job and that makes me a rapist? Yeesh!
This and the long, sordid history of Leftist extremism at Duke is why we are not considering Duke for my daughter, who has started the college-selection process. With her 4.0-plus GPA and AP and honors course, she'd certainly qualify academically.
Remember how MLK used say that the civil rights movement would free white people as much as black? In the same way, Duke cannot oppress men without oppressing its women. What is the oppressors' objectives? Control, control, always control.
Duke is $53,000 per year. That's a lot of money to pay to be treated like a prole on 1984.
Well, it looks like Duke is nationally competitive when it comes to lobbying the government. Duke spent $419,000 on lobbying last year, about 3% of the total lobbying dollars spent by houses of higher learning.
http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/washington/2010/04/duke-wins-the-lobbying-contestbut-theyre-not-the-national-champs.html
I am not certain if you aware that the Criminal Victimization in the U.S. stats compiled by the U.S. DOJ, which NOW and many others rely on to "prove" that rape is rampant, defines rape to include "forced psychological coercion." By this definition, practically everyone has raped and has been raped, so why not just imprison everyone?
What this country needs, from Duke and the other colleges on up to the U.S. government, is an honest discussion about rape, free of gender politics. But as Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers explained at today's Wagner conference on Male Studies (I report on it at False Rape Society), that won't happen so long as feminists have legions of activist groups ready to pounce on every perceived injustice to women -- while men have essentially nothing.
It's time to stop whining to each other and start getting organized.
It seems to me that the most powerful group on Duke's campus is the group of feminists that got this policy passed. If you have sex with one of them, you have obviously been raped and need to file charges.
Yes and when Ms. Exposed-Midriff, Ms. Showing-Cleavage or any of the other come-on sisters (including one of the LUGs whose monologue includes flaunting a "my vagina is happy" badge) stroll by a man on campus then he has been sexually harassed - perhaps even subjected to a mini-rape. Report it, gents.
I'm often amused by the sham moralizing of females who cry "keep it zipped, boys" yet can't keep themselves buttoned up and covered up. A man's libido is not there for the amusement of females who delight in stomping on it. As Camille Paglia has noted before, a female who chooses to embark on a sexual adventure must be prepared to accept the consequences of a sexual misadventure.
Duke is one of the colleges sending my son recruiting material for football and inviting him to visit. With the lacrosse incident and the women's center cancelling the talk by the pro-life woman, I was hesitant. Now very much so. Duke will be so far down the list I doubt we will consider them.
This surely isn't a joke. I heard these types of arguments throughout law school. I once responded that I wished my wife would let me rape her more than once a month. Shockingly, the other students did not appreciate the humor.
One would have hoped that the lacrosse case was an aberration at Duke, but from what I can see, the leadership at Duke is determined to become a caricature of itself. I wrote a number of articles on the lacrosse situation and still am amazed that these charges took on any water at all.
Only in Durham, and only in Duke, I guess.
Oh, I am a UT graduate and spent many great years in Knoxville! (UT, 1971-75, a long, long time ago)
mmm, seems like you would have to be a lunatic to go to duke.
Seriously, when i was looking at law schools, there were only three private schools on my list: harvard, yale and stanford. to non-lawyers, those three schools are regularly ranked the best. i remember my mother saying, "why don't you apply to SMU, its close." my response was, "yeah, i get to pay yale prices but not get the benefit of a yale diploma--no thanks." the closest school i applied to was UT, a much better school for a much cheaper price.
Unless your school is in at least the top 5 of the best in your area, you are crazy to go to a private school. And duke's insanity on rape issues just made them even less attractive as an option.
Just remember, when you hear Dems talking about all the smart well-educated people being in their Party, that they are referring to the soft leftist faculties and administration of all the leftist universities - like, um, Brodhead and the Gang for example. Then depending upon your personal preference you can enjoy either a belly laugh or a quiet chuckle.
DADvocate --
Don't just not consider them, write and tell them to screw off and why.
I have to feel a little sympathy for the man. Would you want to go through life named Dick Brodhead?
OK, I've read it. As someone who advocates for the falsely accused, please trust me on this one: FIRE is overreacting to this one: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/04/overreaction-about-dukes-new-sexual.html
Actually, the interesting point here is that by setting up this rule, the person who is supposed to be intoxicated, pressured, and powerless becomes by far the more powerful in the relationship.
Clearly, recognition of this should lead to the accuser being immediately punished.
Archivist is correct: Fire is over reacting to this. Read the actual policy first, not Fire's statement.
And the misandry train rolls on.
The policy claims that "perceived power differentials may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion."
If only girls weren't attracted to "power differentials"! OMG LOL!!!11!
FIRE pointed out that my assumption that the policy had contractual significance was wrong as Duke has successfully argued it has no contractual significance (give me credit -- I noted it was just an assumption). That changes things materially, so I've taken down my post at False Rape Society.
This is Robert Shibley, Vice President of FIRE. For those who believe FIRE is overreacting, I welcome you to read the policy in full at http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/11723.html and my blog entry on the issue at http://thefire.org/article/11732.html . I believe those who read what the policy actually says rather than make assumptions about what Duke might have meant to do with the policy will agree that as written, it is a frightening tool in the hands of people (Duke administrators) who have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to make good decisions about sexual misconduct.
i read somewhere that feminists believe that it is critical that they balance out the physical and athletic advantages that a man has over women by any means possible.
http://www.heretical.com/toa/toa-s30x.html
as an intellectual exercise balancing has some merit. when we play the girls teams for charity in soccer, at half time we mix the teams up so that the game can be enjoyed and we don`t continue to thrash weaker slower women...because there is ABSOLUTELY NO PLEASURE IN IT.
the continued political equalling of the sexes will only result in chaos...for men and women both.
i warned a friend 10 years ago that some schools such as duke and brown were feminist hot-beds when he was looking for a school for his daughter.
obviously things has stayed much the same.
prediction; we are going to see more and more married men put on trial for infidelity and sent for sexual counselling to "change" them.
while i`m not advocating infidelity in any way, i don`t see it as a mental illness as much as part of the failure of a relationship.
it seems men are being held accountable for the desperate inadequacies some women feel about themselves and this has finally leaked into the political arena.
and andrea dworkin`s rotting carcass seems doomed to roam the fruited plain like some zombieland reject lumbering up the steps of campus lecture halls ad perpetuum.
and there are those who should be grateful for beer pong....otherwise they wouldn`t get a look.....
Archivist, Scott -
I've read the FRS analysis, and I think it is whistling past the graveyard. Archivist may want to depend on the good sense of college administrators, but I'm not quite so trusting.
The Duke rape hoax was only the latest and most obscene of many, many ridiculous situations stoked by crazy activism; this includes expulsions centering around drunken "oops what have I done" sexcapades or other imagined crimes of real or perceived "power differentials."
This is the mother lode for the "all sex is rape" crowd,
and for the feminists who teach women to not have sex in the man-on-top position because it is so "submissive" (putting aside that many women enjoy the position, sometimes for that very reason.) It's also a boon for the "Cinderella" crowd, when a sexually empowered woman becomes a helpless victim after the fact if any negative consequences result (like she decides she can't be seen with him sober, or he decides he's not interested in seeing her again.)
For a guy who runs a website chronicling false accusations, I'm surprised at your ho-hum attitude of "they would never interpret this rule in an insane way." The culture of sex-crime hysteria IS insane, as your own website continues to point out.
So far as I see it, feminists are all about equalizing power playing fields so that a woman can do anything she is capable of without being held back by stereotypes or social convention. There's really nothing wrong with that.
BUT - I think the reason we see so much activism against "powerful" men is because women tend to be attracted to them; once the hormones start tingling, they throw off all their liberation and in word or deed jockey for the man's attention.
Just like men will go weak around a beautiful woman's charms, go to any college party or nightclub and see how the attractive, smooth guys attract a swarm of women, who while in their daytime lives might be ballbreakers turn into googly-eyed mistresses under cover of tank tops and tight pants.
This of course irks feminists two ways - first, it fulfills a stereotype of women as subservient to men. Secondly, it draws women away from their movement directly. Damn nature getting in the way of progress. Hardcore feminists resolve this apparent paradox by telling girls they are stupid: "poor girl, you just don't know you are being oppressed!"
Cham-
It might be easier to stay sober, keep your pants zipped and keep your nose in the books rather than playing beer pong at the frat house and trying to bed as many sex partners as possible while in school.
That is a great idea, but the Duke policy is even worse. One of their explicit examples is: Couple is in a long term relationship, guy wants sex, woman says, "Eh, I don't feel like it tonight," guy argues a bit, they have sex without the woman audibly saying yes. This, according to the Duke policy, without having to extrapolate from the written code, is sexual misconduct.
The only way to insulate yourself against this code is to stay completely abstinent throughout college. That strikes me as a bad result.
I wouldn't send a son OR a daughter to that school! What is it teaching? All men are predators, all women are victims! Thanks, feminazis!
I attended Duke from 1975 to 1984. I had to graduate three times before they finally let me go. It was formerly not like this. The faculty weren't always insane.
The change came when they hired Nan Keohane from Wellesley and let her stay for 10 years as President. An avowed feminist from a liberal women's college came to Duke and was guaranteed to see patriarchy everywhere. She couldn't exactly make Duke into an all women's school but she did everything she could to break up the "male power structure" and turn Duke into Wellesley.
Given that Duke hired its second woman President in Dick Brodhead, this is only the logical outcome.
Anybody remember the Kobe Bryant "rape" story, the one where the woman went to his hotel room, willingly, at something like 3AM. One of the reporters covering the NBA suggested that all NBA players should carry around a "sex contract" with the following points (1) The sex is consensual. If either party backs out, he/she pays the other $1000, (2) The woman agrees that she is using birth control. If she becomes pregnant, she agrees to pay the guy a "stud fee" equal to 105% of the legally enforceable child support payments.
Maybe Duke should adopt something like that for its basketball and lacrosse players
BobH:
I'd like to see a contract of that type upheld in a real court - especially the 2nd point (courts usually take a dim view of signing the way the rights of a third party - the child - without its consent).
Also, a woman can even agree to sex and then decide she doesn't want to DURING sex (there was a case in California like that - the guy was sentenced to prison).
Even being completely celibate will not shield you from criminal or civil penalties for rape - just ask the Duke Boys (well, after a million dollars in legal fees, they didn't go to jail) or Gary Dotson (he spent 10 years in prison - look up that case).
A quick reading of the policy indicates that they never define what "power" means in this context. If you use dictionary definition & common meaning, then extraordinary beauty could be considered a form of power: so a really hot girl who seduces a guy could be guilty under the policy.
"so a really hot girl who seduces a guy could be guilty under the policy."
Theoretically yes; but you and I know how likely that is to happen. :-o
Here is something else.
Consider that the basketball team just won the NCAA tournament. Think of their status among the student body right now. Given that a good percentage of the player are going to have sex with someone, either girlfriends, strangers (maybe a boyfriend or two) in the next few days... Well, there could be a whole industry of arrests and lawsuits based on the success of an athletic team or program.
Sonicfrog,
The B-ball players won't be accused of anything, because they're alpha males; all the women will WANT to sleep with them! It's the nerdy guys in the STEM majors who need to watch out for false accusations...
MarkyMark
To JG:
What's the problem? He's paying child support; she's paying a stud fee. He makes 5% on the exchange. But, yes, we are dealing with judges here, the same people who decided that it is OK for mothers to commit infanticide, although a little early.
I think some of you are missing the forest for the trees here. Put yourself in the shoes of a dean of a very expensive university. You are asking these students' parents to pony up a minimum of $200K for their kids' 4 year vacation. That's a lot of money, lots of money.
Many of these kids have gone to expensive private high schools where they've been coddled, handled very gently and their parents have been protecting them every step of the way. These same kids have a GPS enable cell phone and mom on speed dial. Most of these kids are in no way ready to be on their own once they leave high school. They have the mentality of a 12 year old.
Duke, Harvard, Princeton, whatever are not necessarily educators but more like babysitters and chaperons in these modern times. So I can see why they don't expect their students to be responsible for their own actions. $200K buys a lot of oversight.
Per the Kobe Bryant thing, as usual, the truth seems to lie in the middle.
Living in CO and being surrounded by that crap for far too long, here is the story laid out in the police reports. Stupid loose woman sees famous celebrity, wants sex, offers it, he agrees. They proceed to a private place and commence.
So far, so good. As things approach climax Kobe asks if he can bust on her face. She says no, but being the arrogant douche that Kobe is, he does it anyway.
As I understand it, this would fall under a sexual assault charge rather than rape, but regardless, Kobe was not some innocent victim of another person's greed, but rather a victim of his ego and need to have sex in a certain way, that this particular woman wasn't cool with. Obviously the girl has her own heap of blame to handle, but that has already been discussed extensively in the media.
"So far, so good. As things approach climax Kobe asks if he can bust on her face. She says no, but being the arrogant douche that Kobe is, he does it anyway."
I can't speak to exactly what happened in Kobe's hotel room, but
this highlights a major, intractable problem with the "no means no" activism - let's be honest, sometimes no means yes, and sometimes it's a matter of interpretation whether it's a refusal or a negotiating technique, or an attempt to appear like you are not initiating sex. (Mystery called it the Anti-Slut Defense.)
Now, normally when someone really says no and means it, it's obvious, but when people are sexually charged up their ability to interpret cues is compromised, just like in a violent situation where reason goes by the wayside. (Chris Rock used this to explain why men leave their porn tapes in the VCR.) This is another reason why the "we want to be as sexual as we want but stop as soon as we say no" feminist crowd is so misguided...it's just not realistic to expect that reason and order will rule the day once two people are rounding third base.
When someone has consented to and engaged in penetrative sexual activity (the most invasive form of sex), it's hard for me to brand the other person a sexual assaulter for then attempting a de-escalated sex act like "spilling the seed."
The "no means yes" technique also has psychological benefits. My girlfriend once told me "even if I say I don't want to do it tonight, I still want you to get me to do it, cause that's hot." WTF? I guess it's the double-whammy of having an alpha-male who doesn't take no for an answer, and fancying yourself so irresistible the man can't stop himself.
Just take the next step Duke and bar males from entering the campus.
Post a Comment
<< Home