Here's one: (In which the author provides two reference links.) It is an opinion piece, not a report or a investigation, however. IMO the author makes a perfectly valid point there, with reference to real world outcomes. I read it as her saying: "perhaps these rules are not resulting in their intended outcome", or "perhaps these rules are resulting in unintended outcomes in addition to their intended ones." I don't see that as rhetoric, but a perspective drawn from some evidence that supports it.Sometimes, the movement’s supporters claim that the new rules amount to little more than common sense: Don’t have sex with someone who isn’t a willing partner. In practice, a male student at California’s Occidental College was recently expelled for having sex with a woman who was willing and enthusiastic, but apparently too intoxicated to think clearly.
Not having sex with someone who isn't a willing partner and with someone who is drunk are two completely different things. The article is trying to use the second to discredit the first which is dishonest. I don't have enough information about that specific case to make a judgement on it, but from what was provided in the article it does sound to have been a bad decision by the College. But I don't see any reason to connect this with an issue in the wider policy. Isolated instances like this, while not good are just that, isolated. Also needed would to be to explain what's wrong with the policy that lead to this, and how it can be done better to lessen the likelihood of it happening again. Otherwise it's just letting perfect be the enemy of good.
I see your point, but I didn't read it that way. There is an argument that colleges are ill-equipped to create and manage these policies, and that law enforcement should be playing the primary role rather than institutions that specialize in education. I read the essay as coming from this camp.Not having sex with someone who isn't a willing partner and with someone who is drunk are two completely different things. The article is trying to use the second to discredit the first which is dishonest.
I don't agree with this assessment, but I do agree that law enforcement should be handling this. (Although the police are in fact doing a bad job of this. For example look at the research results quoted in this article) ^ For example this portion of the comment. It seems to be saying that rape isn't rape when it's not violent. It dismisses and trivializes what people who have been sexually assaulted have been through. Attitudes like the above are harmful and I don't believe they should ever be encouraged. Blame the people taking advantage of the other person, not the victim. But this crusade against “rape culture” oversimplifies the vast complexity of human sexual interaction, conflating criminal sexual acts such as coercion by physical force, threat or incapacitation — which should obviously be prosecuted and punished — with bad behavior.
Even in the first incident, in which the man knowingly pressured me into something I didn’t want, I could have safely said no to him.
I agree. But as the author suggests, the question then becomes a matter of the extent of punishment, and how to deal with the vagaries involved. The author herself describes a situation where she pressured someone into sex. Based on her own admission, there is little doubt that the man was a victim there, but to what extent should she be punished, and what constitutes adequate evidence before punishment should be applied? I personally know of a teacher that was accused of sexual assault. The teacher lost his job, and it was only later that the accusers admitted that they fabricated the assaults as revenge for an academic issue. The school was very quick to dismiss the teacher, and it's difficult to blame them, given that schools have a powerful motivation to avoid lawsuits, they often aren't impartial judges in such matters. Personally, I think the author here is focusing too much on the nature of these policies, and not enough on the motivations behind them. IMO failings in these policies reflect that they originate in institutions that are often liable for damages in cases of assault. For that reason, they aren't structured primarily to protect the victim, but to legally protect the insititution. These are crimes, and law enforcement is charged to serve and protect. As you cite, they are failing miserably here, and unfortunately, there is plenty of reason to believe that they aren't currently up to the task either. Still, that doesn't mean that it isn't their duty to address it.Attitudes like the above are harmful and I don't believe they should ever be encouraged. Blame the people taking advantage of the other person, not the victim.
If the victim went to the police, I would hope it is punished it the same as any other rape. Evidence is always a tricky issue. Proving that the encounter occurred is not enough, and without the physical injuries that can be used in violent rape cases there isn't much to go on. The majority of rapes don't end up getting prosecuted. I don't know how to change this aside from making sure that police are take victims more seriously. Yes I can definitely see this causing issues. I'm not sure how this can be easily resolved though. More surveillance I guess, but I don't imagine this being very popular. The author herself describes a situation where she pressured someone into sex. Based on her own admission, there is little doubt that the man was a victim there, but to what extent should she be punished, and what constitutes adequate evidence before punishment should be applied?
IMO failings in these policies reflect that they originate in institutions that are often liable for damages in cases of assault.