Today was another round of presentations for resources. We listened to plans for seminars, school curriculum, and my own group's idea of an infographic type resource.
Holly, Hannah, and Haley presented their research on a high school curriculum that includes more information on rape and sexual assault. They called their curriculum "Flash Plus+" which is supposed to be an extension of the existing sex education in Pullman high schools. They wanted to create an education system that would not take too much more time for the high school instructors to implement, since they are often strapped for time and only have a few days to present the important stuff.
They described how the current system is very scripted and the teachers are not really allowed to say what their own opinions on the subject are. Additionally, there is sex ed at all three levels in some form or another.
Their curriculum would focus on teaching sexual education in relation to rape, especially at the high school level because they will be encountering alcohol, drugs, and will begin being sexually active. The curriculum would also put a focus on going beyond "no means no" and transitioning to "yes means yes" education. They would focus on how and when to say "yes." They also wanted to teach the students how to accept a "no." They wanted to highlight that their sexual choices are their own, and for the others to understand that the best way for someone to find out if another wants to sleep with them is to ask. Also importantly, the group wanted to include resources for the students if the "no" was ignored.
I thought their project was well put-together and they had a good foundation for what they would teach the students.
The next project was a seminar, also targeted at students to have a day or two of discussing rape. They would talk about what constitutes rape, what happens to the victims, etc. They were also planning on showing videos to the students with rape survivors in them, to give them a perspective of what it could be like for victims/survivors. More importantly, I though it was good that the group wanted to bring a heavy dose of pathos. They seemed to think they would aim this pathos at the males in the group. The idea was to relate the topic of rape to people in their lives and ask them how they would feel. One of the questions or topics might ask them how they would feel if their mother/sister/cousin was raped. I thought that part of their presentation was important.
We also presented that day. Our project was an infographic that would go into a magazine or some other forum for parents that was focused heavily on visuals. We wanted to show that certain phrases we say to kids can reinforce rape culture later in life. Such phrases cemented compliance in girls, violence in boys, and other worrisome themes. We had hoped that would get across.
Thursday, December 8, 2016
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
November 6
This class we listened to presentations of people's projects. Lateah had an idea to do more of an interactive idea where she would organize a flash "mob"/dance presentation about rape/rape culture. Jackson had an idea that the group he's a part of, Men for Social Change, would hopefully use in real life. Micah and Jace's project had a pamphlet and a website.
Lateah's project would be impactful because she had planned to do it in a public space like the mall. This means that people would be forced to walk by it, and therefore, in some way would have to confront the ideas that she is presenting. In addition to being near the idea, some people might end up being curious about it and stop to listen to the ideas; maybe some would do their own research later.
Jackson's idea was interesting because of the intended audience. I think it would be safe to say that those of us in this class understand how crucial of allies that college men would be to ending rape and rape culture. His idea looked to recruit men as those allies, specifically in the Greek community, where we have seen many issues. The idea was to incorporate a handout/infographic into an interactive discussion about masculinity. He would present a box and would ask the men in the audience to pinpoint what makes men, men. This would hopefully lead to the revelation by the leaders that there are already actions they do that do not fit within the dominant narrative of what is manhood. Therefore, being an ally for ending rape would be beneficial (even if it does not seem very manly).
Micah and Jace's project was good because of the amount of information that it could distribute to people. Their pamphlet had sources, websites, and definitions that would benefit those who are not familiar with what rape entails and what is involved in rape culture. Their pamphlet could be passed out en masse, or could be placed in a resource center for visitors to pick up. The intended audience seemed a little fuzzy to me, but my understanding was that it would do very well for victims who wanted contact information for help. They were also trying to reach male college students so it was suggested they also pass the pamphlets out to the general population to reach that population.
It was interesting to see how people formulated their projects based on the information we have learned in class.
Lateah's project would be impactful because she had planned to do it in a public space like the mall. This means that people would be forced to walk by it, and therefore, in some way would have to confront the ideas that she is presenting. In addition to being near the idea, some people might end up being curious about it and stop to listen to the ideas; maybe some would do their own research later.
Jackson's idea was interesting because of the intended audience. I think it would be safe to say that those of us in this class understand how crucial of allies that college men would be to ending rape and rape culture. His idea looked to recruit men as those allies, specifically in the Greek community, where we have seen many issues. The idea was to incorporate a handout/infographic into an interactive discussion about masculinity. He would present a box and would ask the men in the audience to pinpoint what makes men, men. This would hopefully lead to the revelation by the leaders that there are already actions they do that do not fit within the dominant narrative of what is manhood. Therefore, being an ally for ending rape would be beneficial (even if it does not seem very manly).
Micah and Jace's project was good because of the amount of information that it could distribute to people. Their pamphlet had sources, websites, and definitions that would benefit those who are not familiar with what rape entails and what is involved in rape culture. Their pamphlet could be passed out en masse, or could be placed in a resource center for visitors to pick up. The intended audience seemed a little fuzzy to me, but my understanding was that it would do very well for victims who wanted contact information for help. They were also trying to reach male college students so it was suggested they also pass the pamphlets out to the general population to reach that population.
It was interesting to see how people formulated their projects based on the information we have learned in class.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
November 17
Today in class we finished up the book review discussions and did the two minute TED talks. My book was Lucky by Alice Sebold, and a couple other people in the class also reviewed this book. The way I looked at my book was to break it down into a few main issues or themes that Sebold seemed to tackle most often. The three I thought were important were: Sebold's position as a rape victim (and therefore only a story to some people), the effect the rape had on the way she viewed her sexuality, and needing people to say the word "rape." The other two in class who looked at the same book chose different aspects of the case, especially looking at the relationship of the family, which was crucial in understanding the way Sebold thought about her rape.
As with my book, many of the books in the class related to the stranger rape that American culture tends to think is the most common form. I have wondered if this is due to the fact that the book may then be more "marketable." Marketable, in this sense, would then deal with the idea that it might be slightly easier to suggest a stranger rape than someone who you know.
There were also some contradictions with the firsthand accounts from the U.S. The only one that was out of the country was Jackson's case, which occurred in Paris. This one was interesting because the police response was completely different than the responses we have seen here. It seemed that the law enforcement over there were much readier to help the target and more willing to listen to her story. That was a bit refreshing in contrast to the diminishing actions of the law enforcement here.
Another case that was quite different from what the rest of the firsthand accounts was Jace's book about the woman who was targeted by her high school teacher, who began an abusive statutory rape "relationship" with her. In that book, the author described the process the abusers go through to make the targets more susceptible to their advances. She stated that many of the targets that are abused by these educators (or others who are in an authority positions) are people who feel ignored.
The other book that had a few different details was Lateah's book, which took a look at black women's stories of rape. This was different because most of the stories had targets who were white women. This book seemed to add much to the discussion of rape because it looked at the oversexualization of women of color. The book talked about the ideas surrounding the rapes of women of color, which were that she must have wanted it, or that she deserved it, or other horrible ideas. Moreover, she said the book discussed the accusation of betrayal that women of color had to face when they accused the black men who raped them. The accusation came with the idea that they would not want to "contribute" to the imprisonment of the black male population. The discussion of rape within the context of rape was really important.
As with my book, many of the books in the class related to the stranger rape that American culture tends to think is the most common form. I have wondered if this is due to the fact that the book may then be more "marketable." Marketable, in this sense, would then deal with the idea that it might be slightly easier to suggest a stranger rape than someone who you know.
There were also some contradictions with the firsthand accounts from the U.S. The only one that was out of the country was Jackson's case, which occurred in Paris. This one was interesting because the police response was completely different than the responses we have seen here. It seemed that the law enforcement over there were much readier to help the target and more willing to listen to her story. That was a bit refreshing in contrast to the diminishing actions of the law enforcement here.
Another case that was quite different from what the rest of the firsthand accounts was Jace's book about the woman who was targeted by her high school teacher, who began an abusive statutory rape "relationship" with her. In that book, the author described the process the abusers go through to make the targets more susceptible to their advances. She stated that many of the targets that are abused by these educators (or others who are in an authority positions) are people who feel ignored.
The other book that had a few different details was Lateah's book, which took a look at black women's stories of rape. This was different because most of the stories had targets who were white women. This book seemed to add much to the discussion of rape because it looked at the oversexualization of women of color. The book talked about the ideas surrounding the rapes of women of color, which were that she must have wanted it, or that she deserved it, or other horrible ideas. Moreover, she said the book discussed the accusation of betrayal that women of color had to face when they accused the black men who raped them. The accusation came with the idea that they would not want to "contribute" to the imprisonment of the black male population. The discussion of rape within the context of rape was really important.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
November 8
Today in class, we
discussed the different rape cases in our books.
The first one we
discussed was called 1 Hour in Paris, in which an American woman was raped in
Paris. It was published in 2014, which is quite new, in comparison to some of
the others (mine was published in 2002). What sets this apart is the fact that
it was international. The woman was raped by an acquaintance, which falls in
line with what we have examined in this case. However, there is no athleticism
at work here. The other additional aspects of our rape culture might also seem
to not be a factor here. He was drunk, she was only sipping her wine, and did
not really want to drink. Additionally, this case fits into the dominant idea
that there will be a significant violent aspect to the rape that is easily
identifiable, since she was raped at knife-point. The other interesting aspect
was the difference in police response. We have talked in class that the police
officers in America downplay the experiences and reactions of the targets and
survivors, but the reactions of the police in France were very different in
that they immediately took her claims to heart.
The second book we
discussed was the Invisible Target. That one was about an abusive relationship
between a teacher and a high school student. The male teacher began an extended
statutory rape relationship with the young student. I thought the most
interesting part of the story was the idea of the grooming, which goes towards
what we know about rapists. The fact that he groomed her and targeted her shows
that this was not a loving relationship, which is often what the defense/rapist
will bring up. Another interesting part was that the girl did not have a great
relationship with her father, which led her to seek that attention elsewhere.
When he effectively rejects her at the beginning of their relationship so that
she would want him more, he is definitely exhibiting a power play. And as we
know, rape is about power, not sex.
The last one we
discussed was Perfectly Broken. One of the things I found interesting about
hearing about this book was the fact that she added a large faith-based
component. I know some people in class seemed dismayed that there was such a
large religious component, but I think that is beneficial and different than
what we have read before. In many of the books and accounts we have read, the
women tried to find the strength to overcome their rapes by themselves. That is
obviously awesome, but I think that finding her faith again in this account
would have been very beneficial. I imagine that finding her place in her faith
again would allow her to (potentially) look at humanity in a healthier way
after having that view so fractured.
Two of the three
accounts today were acquaintance rape, which is closer to what we know about
the statistics of rape, but overall in class, there has been more discussion of
the stranger rapes that occur. Most of the books we looked at had the “classic”
narrative of having some man (and they have all been men) jump out of the
bushes and assault an unsuspecting or kindhearted woman (kindhearted in the
case of the woman who was asked to give directions). This goes back to the idea
that with all these stories, they are more marketable than telling the
population they might know someone who is a rapist. The other dissimilarity
between one of the books was that it was an extended abuse. The rest of the
accounts of rape were only one instance instead of many years.
Thursday, October 27, 2016
October 27
In connection with our course topic, I went to a talk by Laci Green called "Taking Down Rape Culture."
I found this talk to be quite interesting. I had hoped that after I went, I would learn knew ideas or ways of looking at the topic, but I am beginning to think that this class covers basically all the rhetorical ways of looking at the topic. However, the talk was interesting to attend largely to see the way that the topic is being discussed to populations that may not be familiar with the rhetoric or the ways that it is now being explained to people who are in systems that might not be as familiar with the topic.
Green used an engaging Prezi presentation that had bright colors and unassuming cartoon characters. To begin her discussion, she used a video where she compiled many instances of rape culture set in front of a fairly menacing musical rhythm. Before she showed her video, she asked the audience who had heard of the term 'rape culture'. Both of these rhetorical moves made sense, because it showed an understanding of who her audience might be. While most of the audience in the front rows knew the term, I can't imagine there were not more that did not know the full implications of the term. Green defined rape culture as a culture in which sexual violence i common, considered normal, and tolerated.
To make her presentation digestible, Green divided the topic into four parts, stating that rape culture is perpetuated by: toleration, trivialization, blaming the victim, and toxic masculinity. Then, she used cases for each piece, as she worked through the four parts.
Toleration, Green said, is involved in much of rape culture. This is because our sentencing for rapes are low, or in many cases (as our own class has examined), non-existent. Additionally, Green brought up the fact that our culture often tries to protect the perpetrators. Whether it is athletes or even men in higher positions of power, we are too concerned with the idea that whatever sentence we would give them would be "ruining their lives." Green also says that we downplay the crime (a la "boys will be boys") and we sympathize with the perpetrators. She used the Brock Turner case for this topic.
Next, rape culture is kept alive by trivializing the crime. She asks why we don't believe survivors when they tell us that something has happened. Moreover, Green compiled five ways in which we trivialize rape: 1) misunderstanding, 2) people we love/admire aren't capable of rape, 3) bitches be crazy, 4) males always want sex, and 5) they asked for it. Green says when presented with the accusation of rape, we say that it was probably a misunderstanding and that it was actually consensual. We don't want to believe that the people we know could be capable of a violent sexual crime We think that women are just attention-hungry or crazy in general. Conversely, we think that men always want sex, so when they are victimized, they wanted it. Lastly we think that if the violence happened, then the person must have been doing something to ask for it.
We blame the victim when we use alcohol as a double-standard. The perpetrator gets a free pass when they are drunk, but the victim gets blamed for their attack when they are drunk. Additionally, Green brought up the idea of slut-shaming as a way we blame victims. The victim was dressed provocatively, so she was asking for it.
Lastly, toxic masculinity contributes because it takes the ways our culture thinks about masculinity and applies them to sexual encounters. This requires men to be dominating and overly powerful. It says that men need to be in control and the pursuers. Also, toxic masculinity stigmatizes male survivors, because it says that they should have exerted more power in trying to get away from the attack.
The talk was an interesting one to learn how it is being talked about in the "real world" (or outside of an academic contexts). However, I did not learn anything new.
Green used an engaging Prezi presentation that had bright colors and unassuming cartoon characters. To begin her discussion, she used a video where she compiled many instances of rape culture set in front of a fairly menacing musical rhythm. Before she showed her video, she asked the audience who had heard of the term 'rape culture'. Both of these rhetorical moves made sense, because it showed an understanding of who her audience might be. While most of the audience in the front rows knew the term, I can't imagine there were not more that did not know the full implications of the term. Green defined rape culture as a culture in which sexual violence i common, considered normal, and tolerated.
To make her presentation digestible, Green divided the topic into four parts, stating that rape culture is perpetuated by: toleration, trivialization, blaming the victim, and toxic masculinity. Then, she used cases for each piece, as she worked through the four parts.
Toleration, Green said, is involved in much of rape culture. This is because our sentencing for rapes are low, or in many cases (as our own class has examined), non-existent. Additionally, Green brought up the fact that our culture often tries to protect the perpetrators. Whether it is athletes or even men in higher positions of power, we are too concerned with the idea that whatever sentence we would give them would be "ruining their lives." Green also says that we downplay the crime (a la "boys will be boys") and we sympathize with the perpetrators. She used the Brock Turner case for this topic.
Next, rape culture is kept alive by trivializing the crime. She asks why we don't believe survivors when they tell us that something has happened. Moreover, Green compiled five ways in which we trivialize rape: 1) misunderstanding, 2) people we love/admire aren't capable of rape, 3) bitches be crazy, 4) males always want sex, and 5) they asked for it. Green says when presented with the accusation of rape, we say that it was probably a misunderstanding and that it was actually consensual. We don't want to believe that the people we know could be capable of a violent sexual crime We think that women are just attention-hungry or crazy in general. Conversely, we think that men always want sex, so when they are victimized, they wanted it. Lastly we think that if the violence happened, then the person must have been doing something to ask for it.
We blame the victim when we use alcohol as a double-standard. The perpetrator gets a free pass when they are drunk, but the victim gets blamed for their attack when they are drunk. Additionally, Green brought up the idea of slut-shaming as a way we blame victims. The victim was dressed provocatively, so she was asking for it.
Lastly, toxic masculinity contributes because it takes the ways our culture thinks about masculinity and applies them to sexual encounters. This requires men to be dominating and overly powerful. It says that men need to be in control and the pursuers. Also, toxic masculinity stigmatizes male survivors, because it says that they should have exerted more power in trying to get away from the attack.
The talk was an interesting one to learn how it is being talked about in the "real world" (or outside of an academic contexts). However, I did not learn anything new.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
October 25
For this blog post, I am going to write a little about the firsthand account rape book I have chosen to read.
Alice Sebold's Lucky is a very graphic piece in which she chronicles her own experience after her first year of college at Syracuse. I have only read the first chapter as of writing this, but I can already tell that her case will be different than the cases we have read before in this class.
Sebold's attack was not, for instance, was not an acquaintance attack. She did not know her attacker (from what the first chapter describes, it seems like the classic example of the stranger in the bushes). Furthermore, her attacker was not the type we have seen, which was chiefly athletes and privileged males in their celebrity.
She was also wearing clothing that was far more modest than most. Additionally, Sebold makes sure she describes her clothing so the reader knows that she is already defying the stereotypes. She describes her outfits as frumpy, and that description might be accurate. Sebold was wearing regular pants, a button up oxford shirt, and a cable-knit sweater. That is not exactly the average party-going outfit of the college freshman.
Additionally, Alice Sebold was not partying. When she was raped, it was the last day of school. She had been over at a friend's just spending time together and taking pictures. The rest of the school, including her friends, were out partying and drinking. Sebold wasn't; she might be described as more of the quintessential bookworm. She was merely walking through the park. The fact that she was not drinking or partying I imagine will be a boon to her case. Defense attorneys or police will not be able to use that against her. She will remember almost everything and the details, so her story will (likely) not have as many gaps.
Another thing that police or defense will not be able to use against her is the fact that she was a virgin. Sebold is very graphic in the description of her attack, and as she describes the exchange, she describes how she was so inexperienced that she did not know how to perform some of the acts that the rapist wanted her to. This lack of other partners and experiences means that the defense (if her case goes to court, which thus far I have not learned) cannot use any of the "slut-shaming" tactics that they have in other cases. They can't assert that Sebold merely wanted to shield herself from public opinion because she was cheating.
Moreover, Sebold's case will - I expect - be buttressed by the fact that she was brutally beaten. Even the nurses who were doing her rape kit noted this. Since Sebold was clearly abused in the worst possible manner, the police or anybody else could not assert that she wanted or was inviting this attack. Sebold also thought that she might be able to evade telling her mother about her attack, but it was clear by her appearance that this was not possible. She was bruised, had cuts, was at one point choked, so it was not able to be hidden.
One more notable aspect of this case that will likely be different than the ones we have read is that Sebold went straight to people who could help her and reported the rape. There was no vacillation. Probably due to the violence of the attack, she immediately knew that she had been raped. Sebold passed the RA on duty in her dorm, and he immediately knew something was wrong, but she did not tell him. Then she went to the only one of her friends who was around in the dorm, but she passed out when she heard the news. Because she could not help her, Sebold walked right back down the stairs and asked the RA to call the police. Once he did that, the process for rape victims began and she was taken away. This all occurred only an hour or two after the attack, which is different than the other women waiting to report. This book will be interesting also in that Sebold chronicles the thoughts that she had during the attack and afterwards.
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
October 11
We discussed three cases of campus rape today in class. I will only discuss two of them here, because one fits the dominant U.S. campus rape scenarios and one does not at all.
The first case fits the dominant model, and it occurred at Vanderbilt. This case caused quite a stir because there were several disturbing aspects in the case. A girl was raped by a man she met at a bar who put date-rape drugs in her drink and he rape her and encouraged his teammates to rape her while he videoed and photographed the assault. The photos were shared with other players. The target was passed out and did not know what happened until a couple days later. The case got a lot of attention, but only two of the four attackers were convicted.
This case fits what we are learning in this class. First, the attackers were athletes, which seems to be fairly common, especially among college cases. Second, alcohol was involved; both the target and the attackers had been drinking and the attack occurred at a party. Next, and probably most important, the attackers tried to shift blame elsewhere. They tried to blame alcohol and college culture (which also occurred in the Brock Turner case). When the male attackers have been drinking, alcohol is used as a benefit to their cases. They argue that they cannot be held responsible. Yet, when the woman target has been drinking, alcohol is used as an accusation against her. If she was drinking then she must have been "loose with her morals." Or, they assert that because she was drinking, that she must be a party girl. Also, the spreading of photos and videos seem to be occurring more with campus rapes. These are all things that we have seen before and seem to be recurring themes.
The next college case that is quite different happened at Ohio State University. One of the initial differences is that the attacker was not an athlete or a student. He was a drum instructor for the marching band. He raped a woman who was trying to join the band. She was underage and he got her into a bar, where they discussed and drank. He then took her back to his residence and raped her.
This case was different because the attacker was not an athlete or a student. We have seen mainly athletes attacking women at parties, so that immediately does not fit into the dominant picture. Additionally, the fact that he was in a position of power in the university seems out of the "ordinary" for the cases in class. He also did not seem to be a part of the hypermasculine culture that is often a part of athletics. One similarity is that alcohol was still involved, but again, the alcohol consumption is different because they did not consume it at a party. Another thing that is different is that the attacker apologized for the assault he committed and did not blame her for the attack like in other cases. Yet, the presentation of him in the headlines was also still the same, in that the headlines did not focus on what he did. Instead, the headlines focused on who he was before the attack. They commented on the nice things he did, such as taking care of his mother. That aspect was quite interesting.
We discussed three more cases in the class, but most of them (including mine), involved college athletes. These two cases above are very different in that one of them conforms to many of the aspects about campus rape that we have discussed. The second one is different for several reasons. Yet, both cases seem to exhibit what we know about rape, which is that it is about power and domination.
The first case fits the dominant model, and it occurred at Vanderbilt. This case caused quite a stir because there were several disturbing aspects in the case. A girl was raped by a man she met at a bar who put date-rape drugs in her drink and he rape her and encouraged his teammates to rape her while he videoed and photographed the assault. The photos were shared with other players. The target was passed out and did not know what happened until a couple days later. The case got a lot of attention, but only two of the four attackers were convicted.
This case fits what we are learning in this class. First, the attackers were athletes, which seems to be fairly common, especially among college cases. Second, alcohol was involved; both the target and the attackers had been drinking and the attack occurred at a party. Next, and probably most important, the attackers tried to shift blame elsewhere. They tried to blame alcohol and college culture (which also occurred in the Brock Turner case). When the male attackers have been drinking, alcohol is used as a benefit to their cases. They argue that they cannot be held responsible. Yet, when the woman target has been drinking, alcohol is used as an accusation against her. If she was drinking then she must have been "loose with her morals." Or, they assert that because she was drinking, that she must be a party girl. Also, the spreading of photos and videos seem to be occurring more with campus rapes. These are all things that we have seen before and seem to be recurring themes.
The next college case that is quite different happened at Ohio State University. One of the initial differences is that the attacker was not an athlete or a student. He was a drum instructor for the marching band. He raped a woman who was trying to join the band. She was underage and he got her into a bar, where they discussed and drank. He then took her back to his residence and raped her.
This case was different because the attacker was not an athlete or a student. We have seen mainly athletes attacking women at parties, so that immediately does not fit into the dominant picture. Additionally, the fact that he was in a position of power in the university seems out of the "ordinary" for the cases in class. He also did not seem to be a part of the hypermasculine culture that is often a part of athletics. One similarity is that alcohol was still involved, but again, the alcohol consumption is different because they did not consume it at a party. Another thing that is different is that the attacker apologized for the assault he committed and did not blame her for the attack like in other cases. Yet, the presentation of him in the headlines was also still the same, in that the headlines did not focus on what he did. Instead, the headlines focused on who he was before the attack. They commented on the nice things he did, such as taking care of his mother. That aspect was quite interesting.
We discussed three more cases in the class, but most of them (including mine), involved college athletes. These two cases above are very different in that one of them conforms to many of the aspects about campus rape that we have discussed. The second one is different for several reasons. Yet, both cases seem to exhibit what we know about rape, which is that it is about power and domination.
Thursday, October 6, 2016
October 6 - My Case
Today in class, I presented the rape case that I am interested in researching, and for my post, I will discuss it a little bit here.
Here are some of the facts.
Allegedly, in 2014, a woman was gang-raped by three basketball players at the University of Oregon. The woman was not identified in reports, but one of the basketball players was identified as Brandon Austin. The woman claimed that she was cornered in a bathroom and raped by the three players. After the assault, the woman sought counseling from the University of Oregon health services. Additionally, the Lane County district attorney did not file charges, citing the always-popular "insufficient evidence." The University of Oregon did eventually find the players guilty of sexually assaulting the woman, and two of them were able to go play basketball at other colleges.
The victim filed a lawsuit against UO and the basketball coach, Dana Altman, for violating her Title IX rights. The reason Altman was included in the lawsuit is because it was alleged that he knew about Brandon Austin's past with sexual assault: he'd been accused before. This would be contributing to the claim that her Title IX rights had been violated. Altman was eventually taken off of the lawsuit, and it was settled for $800,000, free tuition, and housing and fees.
One of the biggest issues about this case is that the victims records were released to the university attorneys for the lawsuit. The assumption when a student goes to obtain counseling from the professionals is that the records will be protected, just like normal medical records. However, in her article, Diana Moscovitz notes that university counseling records are not considered medical records. So then, they would not be protected by HIPAA. Conversely, she notes that FERPA technically makes it legal for the university to release the student's records to the lawyers because there is a clause that allows a university to disclose such records when the university is being sued. This is a defense for their actions.
Despite the fact that this is technically legal, the action has received some backlash. One such opponent is one of the counselors at the school. She says this sort of action violates her "ethical and professional standards" (Moscovitz). Others have found this action objectionable even if it is technically legal. I would have to say I am one of those people, which is why I chose to research this case. Even before I fully read the articles that described this case, I found myself thinking the same things as Moscovitz writes about FERPA:
FERPA is the same law that schools routinely use to block public records requests. So now, not only can schools keep their scandals in the dark, they also can use it to fight off lawsuits in court related to those scandals. For American universities, FERPA really is the gift that keeps on giving.
I find this to describe exactly what was going through my mind, and it is one reason I want to research this case. There seems to be a disconnect in the ways in which universities will use different regulations and laws. I seem to remember in Krakauer's book how it was not permitted (supposedly under FERPA) for Jordan Johnson's previous disciplinary actions to be used in the proceedings. However, when there are records on a woman who was allegedly raped, a university will use the very same law to disclose records about her that probably should not be released. I see many issues with this, so with this paper, I hope to examine them.
Sources:
Moskovitz, Diana. "Oregon: We Have the Right To Access a Rape Victim's Medical Records." March 3, 2015. Deadspin. http://deadspin.com/oregon-we-have-the-right-to-access-a-rape-victims-medi-1689196041.
Read, Richard. "Student Who Sued UO, Claiming She Was Gang-Raped by Basketball Players, Settles for $800,000." August 4, 2015. Oregon Live. http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2015/08/student_receives_800000_settle.html
Here are some of the facts.
Allegedly, in 2014, a woman was gang-raped by three basketball players at the University of Oregon. The woman was not identified in reports, but one of the basketball players was identified as Brandon Austin. The woman claimed that she was cornered in a bathroom and raped by the three players. After the assault, the woman sought counseling from the University of Oregon health services. Additionally, the Lane County district attorney did not file charges, citing the always-popular "insufficient evidence." The University of Oregon did eventually find the players guilty of sexually assaulting the woman, and two of them were able to go play basketball at other colleges.
The victim filed a lawsuit against UO and the basketball coach, Dana Altman, for violating her Title IX rights. The reason Altman was included in the lawsuit is because it was alleged that he knew about Brandon Austin's past with sexual assault: he'd been accused before. This would be contributing to the claim that her Title IX rights had been violated. Altman was eventually taken off of the lawsuit, and it was settled for $800,000, free tuition, and housing and fees.
One of the biggest issues about this case is that the victims records were released to the university attorneys for the lawsuit. The assumption when a student goes to obtain counseling from the professionals is that the records will be protected, just like normal medical records. However, in her article, Diana Moscovitz notes that university counseling records are not considered medical records. So then, they would not be protected by HIPAA. Conversely, she notes that FERPA technically makes it legal for the university to release the student's records to the lawyers because there is a clause that allows a university to disclose such records when the university is being sued. This is a defense for their actions.
Despite the fact that this is technically legal, the action has received some backlash. One such opponent is one of the counselors at the school. She says this sort of action violates her "ethical and professional standards" (Moscovitz). Others have found this action objectionable even if it is technically legal. I would have to say I am one of those people, which is why I chose to research this case. Even before I fully read the articles that described this case, I found myself thinking the same things as Moscovitz writes about FERPA:
FERPA is the same law that schools routinely use to block public records requests. So now, not only can schools keep their scandals in the dark, they also can use it to fight off lawsuits in court related to those scandals. For American universities, FERPA really is the gift that keeps on giving.
I find this to describe exactly what was going through my mind, and it is one reason I want to research this case. There seems to be a disconnect in the ways in which universities will use different regulations and laws. I seem to remember in Krakauer's book how it was not permitted (supposedly under FERPA) for Jordan Johnson's previous disciplinary actions to be used in the proceedings. However, when there are records on a woman who was allegedly raped, a university will use the very same law to disclose records about her that probably should not be released. I see many issues with this, so with this paper, I hope to examine them.
Sources:
Moskovitz, Diana. "Oregon: We Have the Right To Access a Rape Victim's Medical Records." March 3, 2015. Deadspin. http://deadspin.com/oregon-we-have-the-right-to-access-a-rape-victims-medi-1689196041.
Read, Richard. "Student Who Sued UO, Claiming She Was Gang-Raped by Basketball Players, Settles for $800,000." August 4, 2015. Oregon Live. http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2015/08/student_receives_800000_settle.html
Monday, September 19, 2016
September 20 Sources -- Chapter 25
"Bell
v. Wolfish." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at
Illinois Tech, n.d. Sep 19, 2016. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1978/77-1829
Oyez,
a Chicago-Kent School of Law website says that the facts of the case were:
A class action lawsuit challenged the legality of
conditions facing pretrial detainees in a New York City correctional facility.
Petitioners claimed that double-bunking, restrictions on reading materials that
inmates were allowed to receive, and required cavity searches and shakedowns
amounted to punishment before conviction.
The
website then states that in the decision:
As long as administrative practices are implemented
in the genuine interest of "safeguarding institutional security" then
they do not warrant judicial scrutiny and are consistent with the Constitution.
The
other court case that was mentioned (the military case U.S. v. Dickey 1994) I
actually had a hard time finding information on, so I do not have a source. The
other “U.S. v. Dickey” cases I found were not from 1994, so I doubted they were
the same one.
“Canons of Police Ethics.” Illinois Institute of
Technology. October, 24, 2011. http://ethics.iit.edu/ecodes/node/3352
“Article
10. Presentation of Evidence
The
law enforcement officer shall be concerned equally in the prosecution of the
wrong-doer and the defense of the innocent. He shall ascertain what constitutes
evidence and shall present such evidence impartially and without malice. In so
doing, he will ignore social, political, and all other distinctions among the
persons involved, strengthening the tradition of the reliability and integrity
of an officer's word.
The
law enforcement officer shall take special pains to increase his perception and
skill of observation, mindful that in many situations his is the sole impartial
testimony to the facts of a case.”
This
is pretty self-explanatory. It is what police are supposed to be committed to.
Article 10 was discussed in the cross-examination of Detective Connie
Brueckner, and it refers to evidence collection
International Association
of Chiefs of Police. N.d. http://www.iacp.org/
This
is the website that Adam Duerk references when he is allowed to address
Brueckner once more in the trial, and discusses the language in the guidelines
on this site. Their tagline on the home page says they are “Serving the Leaders
of Today, Developing the Leaders of Tomorrow.” The IACP is a “professional
association for law enforcement worldwide” (from the About Us page). It puts
together programs and services, and also conducts research. It is an extensive
website with many resources. The page on “Police Response to Violence Against
Women” is particularly interesting.
Sommers, Marilyn Sawyer.
“Defining Patterns of Genital Injury from Sexual Assault: A Review.” Trauma,
Violence & Abuse 8.3 (2007): 270–280. PMC. Web. 20
Sept. 2016.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3142744/
This
article is from the journal Trauma, Violence & Abuse. It is actually a
really helpful source when it comes to the literature regarding injury from
sexual assault. I decided to look up this information because of the exchange
in the courtroom between Francoeur (the nurse) and Paoli (the defense
attorney). Paoli continually questioned the evidence, and I wanted to see what I
could find about it. The above article is one that essentially questions the
validity of previous studies’ work on this topic. It is also helpful because it
looks at the legal implications of the evidence.
U.S Department of Justice.
Office on Violence Against Women. A National Protocol for Sexual Assault
Medical Forensic Examinations. April 2013. Second Edition. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ovw/241903.pdf
This
is the second edition of the medical protocol that is discussed in court. This
one was released in 2013, while the one in Missoula was released in
2004. I cannot even pretend that I read the entire resource, as the document is
extensive at 144 pages. However, in the foreword, the document lists a myriad
of possible reasons that a sexual assault victim may not want to seek medical
attention. Because of this, the authors write that it is all the more important
to make sure that medical attentions are aware of this. On page iii, the
document states: “It is our hope that this protocol will help jurisdictions in
their efforts to respond to sexual assault victims in the most competent,
compassionate, and understanding manner possible.” The second link above is the
2004 version.
Also
notable, is that in the 2004 version, the document talks about gaining consent
throughout the exam process and what different answers could mean for the legal
process. It also discusses different roles for the examiner in regards to the
legal process.
Thursday, September 8, 2016
September 8
We discussed parts 3 and 4 of the book today. In this post, I will talk about the Cecilia Washburn case. The way this was described, the case was treated like Washburn was lying about what happened.
In the incident, Cecilia Washburn and Jordan Johnson were friends and she had been a little interested in him, romantically. He was not particularly interested in her, but he was under the assumption that they would probably have sex at some point. However, he was not interested in dating her. The night of the rape, Washburn did not do any of the things that a girl pursuing a guy would do. She didn't shower, put on nice clothing, do her makeup, but even though she didn't do any of this, an earlier quotation about her intentions was included in her questioning. When both people were at a dance and were drunk, Washburn had told Johnson: "Jordy, I would do you anytime." That comment would put her into question later, which would be a detraction for her case. However, she just didn't want to have sex that night. And she told him so, but as we have seen in a couple other cases, this case became a "he said," "she said" case.
One part I found interesting about this case was the fact that she had acknowledged along the way what was consensual. She said that the kissing was consensual and other activities, but firmly acknowledged that she did not want to sleep with him. She firmly said "no" and "let's just watch the movie." This case is like the other one with Kerry Barrett. Both women knew exactly when they gave consent and where they didn't.
The other part that would be brought up was why Washburn did not scream to her roommate in the other room that she was being harmed. The assumption there was that he would come and stop the assault from happening. However, I think it is reasonable that she would not have yelled anything, as she was likely in shock of what was happening. We know that victims of trauma don't often believe what is happening to them; they are in denial. So that might have been what was going through her head. Another part of her case that was brought up as a way to diminish her case was the fact that Washburn sent a smiley face to another friend afterwards, who had asked her to pick him up and drive him home. The argument there is that someone who has had a violent encounter would not respond with a smiley face. They argued that is acting like nothing had happened. Yet again, she might have been in denial. If someone just got raped, they might have intuitively known it (shown by her text to her roommate Stephen), but they might still be in shock. Furthermore--and I know this could be considered a stretch but I think it is still valid--most people that text frequently use smiley faces. Some do it without realizing it. If she was processing her assault, then she might have just gone through the motions without taking an additional look at it. Additionally, she said that she didn't want this other friend to know what had just happened. This is reasonable because that is an intensely personal assault. If she had texted in a manner that was different than she usually would, then the receiver might know she was not acting normally and might ask her how she was doing. She probably wasn't ready to answer an inquiry like that. To me, her actions made some sense.
In the incident, Cecilia Washburn and Jordan Johnson were friends and she had been a little interested in him, romantically. He was not particularly interested in her, but he was under the assumption that they would probably have sex at some point. However, he was not interested in dating her. The night of the rape, Washburn did not do any of the things that a girl pursuing a guy would do. She didn't shower, put on nice clothing, do her makeup, but even though she didn't do any of this, an earlier quotation about her intentions was included in her questioning. When both people were at a dance and were drunk, Washburn had told Johnson: "Jordy, I would do you anytime." That comment would put her into question later, which would be a detraction for her case. However, she just didn't want to have sex that night. And she told him so, but as we have seen in a couple other cases, this case became a "he said," "she said" case.
One part I found interesting about this case was the fact that she had acknowledged along the way what was consensual. She said that the kissing was consensual and other activities, but firmly acknowledged that she did not want to sleep with him. She firmly said "no" and "let's just watch the movie." This case is like the other one with Kerry Barrett. Both women knew exactly when they gave consent and where they didn't.
The other part that would be brought up was why Washburn did not scream to her roommate in the other room that she was being harmed. The assumption there was that he would come and stop the assault from happening. However, I think it is reasonable that she would not have yelled anything, as she was likely in shock of what was happening. We know that victims of trauma don't often believe what is happening to them; they are in denial. So that might have been what was going through her head. Another part of her case that was brought up as a way to diminish her case was the fact that Washburn sent a smiley face to another friend afterwards, who had asked her to pick him up and drive him home. The argument there is that someone who has had a violent encounter would not respond with a smiley face. They argued that is acting like nothing had happened. Yet again, she might have been in denial. If someone just got raped, they might have intuitively known it (shown by her text to her roommate Stephen), but they might still be in shock. Furthermore--and I know this could be considered a stretch but I think it is still valid--most people that text frequently use smiley faces. Some do it without realizing it. If she was processing her assault, then she might have just gone through the motions without taking an additional look at it. Additionally, she said that she didn't want this other friend to know what had just happened. This is reasonable because that is an intensely personal assault. If she had texted in a manner that was different than she usually would, then the receiver might know she was not acting normally and might ask her how she was doing. She probably wasn't ready to answer an inquiry like that. To me, her actions made some sense.
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
Chapter 10 Sources
One of the pieces of research that Krakauer uses heavily in
the first part of chapter 10 is the study by Lisak and Miller titled “Repeat
Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists.” The study uses a survey
approach to look at if rapists not in jail were repeat offenders like the ones
incarcerated. In their words, “The goal of the present study was to determine
the proportion of self-reported rapists who commit multiple acts of rape
undetected by the criminal justice system and to examine whether some
proportion of rapists also admit to other forms of interpersonal violence”
(75). The study did indeed show that most of the acts in their survey that
counted as rapes were committed by a small number of men. Basically, the men
that raped once, usually raped again. Despite the fact that the study was
conducted at a university, the authors wrote that the recidivism of the
participants was in contrast to the “prevalent image of a male college student
who, under the influence of alcohol, mistakenly crosses the line between sexual
pressure and rape” (81).
Krakauer uses this study to underscore the UM victims’
concerns of their attackers committing the same crime later. For those who were
attacked and decided to report it, this reasoning was part of their final
decision to report it. By presenting this scientific study that looked at
actual college students, Krakauer strengthens his and the women’s arguments.
The other research that Krakauer presents in the first few
pages of chapter 10 is the 2009 study that supports the 2002 study by Lisak and
Miller. This study is titled “Reports of Rape Reperpetration by Newly Enlisted
Male Navy Personnel.” The study corroborates the findings of the previous one.
It concludes that “Regardless of time period, participants reported primarily
perpetrating completed rape rather than attempted rape, perpetrating multiple
ACR [attempted or completed rape] incidents rather than single ACR incidents, using
substances more frequently than force, and knowing their victim rather than
targeting a stranger” (213). In a single sentence, the study sums up everything
that Krakauer has been asserting. The fact that the study found the same
occurrences as the previous one is a support to the arguments being made
because it is more recent and the more data is collected, the more reliable the
findings are. He uses this study like the earlier one: to support what the
victims have reported.
The journal that both of these studies were published in is Violence and Victims and is interdisciplinary. It covers "interpersonal violence and victimization" among the different disciplines.
Lisak, David, and Paul M. Miller. “Repeat Rape and Multiple
Offending Among Undetected Rapists.” Violence
and Victims, 17, no. 1, 2002.
McWhorter, Stephanie K., Valerie A. Stander, Lex L. Merrill,
Cynthia J. Thomsen, and Joel S. Milner. “Reports of Rape Reperpetration by
Newly Enlisted Male Navy Personnel.” Violence
and Victims, 24, no. 2, 2009.
Thursday, September 1, 2016
September 1
One question I had after reading chapter two had to do with the quote/excerpt that Krakauer had chosen for the beginning of the part. On the first page of chapter two he includes a quote from an article in the Atlantic where a woman writer shared her thoughts about female sexuality.
Krakauer includes the part that says that women are finally agreed to want sex, but then the author asks "But does that mean we experience desire in the same way that men do? [Her] lust tells her we don't." At the end of the excerpt, it says that the dialogue that occurs in her brain is "Not I want this, but Do I want this? What exactly do I want? How about now? And now?" I thought this excerpt was an interesting one to include. So much so that I looked up the article and read the whole thing. Ir is about eight pages, and it covers what women authors have said about women and sex.
Rhetorically speaking, I wondered why Krakauer chose to include it in this section, especially since the main topic is on Kerry Barrett and Zeke Adams. The nature of their encounter (and her subsequent assault) began in a friendly manner at a bar. They ran into each other while drinking, began talking to each other and headed towards his house. She made it clear she was not going to sleep with him, and he said that was ok, he just did not want her to go home for fear that her walk would be unsafe. (Already, that statement by him plays on a dominant trope that her chances of being attacked are higher in the dark at night, by a stranger.) So she stayed with him. They fell asleep on his bed, with her being fully-clothed. She woke up to her pants at her ankles and him attempting to assault her.
When the police questioned her, she made sure to indicate along the way, the points at which Adams had her consent, and where he didn't. She made clear to them what she had wanted and what she had not wanted. Here is where I am confused, or at least interested in why Krakauer chose to include the above excerpt. The way that Kerry Barrett described their encounter is that she knew how far she wanted to go and when she wanted to stop. The above excerpt might throw some rhetorical confusion into the mix. This is just because that woman is saying that she is not always sure if she wants something or why she wants something. That is not the way it was described in part two. Does Krakauer intend to use that piece as a way to characterize the police's understandings of the situation? Is it meant to be a characterization of the way many people would understand the situation?
I thought it added an interesting layer to the beginning of part two, but the excerpts like that can be really important to a reader's understanding of a chapter. Those excerpts can frame the view of the chapter because they act as a preface of sorts. I may be missing Krakauer's point with this one, but I thought it was important to discuss. That excerpt may make it seem like women are just confused in sexual encounters. It may make it seem like if a woman were to allege assault or misconduct, that someone could respond saying, "well are you sure you didn't want it?" And that is exactly what some of the people did.
Krakauer includes the part that says that women are finally agreed to want sex, but then the author asks "But does that mean we experience desire in the same way that men do? [Her] lust tells her we don't." At the end of the excerpt, it says that the dialogue that occurs in her brain is "Not I want this, but Do I want this? What exactly do I want? How about now? And now?" I thought this excerpt was an interesting one to include. So much so that I looked up the article and read the whole thing. Ir is about eight pages, and it covers what women authors have said about women and sex.
Rhetorically speaking, I wondered why Krakauer chose to include it in this section, especially since the main topic is on Kerry Barrett and Zeke Adams. The nature of their encounter (and her subsequent assault) began in a friendly manner at a bar. They ran into each other while drinking, began talking to each other and headed towards his house. She made it clear she was not going to sleep with him, and he said that was ok, he just did not want her to go home for fear that her walk would be unsafe. (Already, that statement by him plays on a dominant trope that her chances of being attacked are higher in the dark at night, by a stranger.) So she stayed with him. They fell asleep on his bed, with her being fully-clothed. She woke up to her pants at her ankles and him attempting to assault her.
When the police questioned her, she made sure to indicate along the way, the points at which Adams had her consent, and where he didn't. She made clear to them what she had wanted and what she had not wanted. Here is where I am confused, or at least interested in why Krakauer chose to include the above excerpt. The way that Kerry Barrett described their encounter is that she knew how far she wanted to go and when she wanted to stop. The above excerpt might throw some rhetorical confusion into the mix. This is just because that woman is saying that she is not always sure if she wants something or why she wants something. That is not the way it was described in part two. Does Krakauer intend to use that piece as a way to characterize the police's understandings of the situation? Is it meant to be a characterization of the way many people would understand the situation?
I thought it added an interesting layer to the beginning of part two, but the excerpts like that can be really important to a reader's understanding of a chapter. Those excerpts can frame the view of the chapter because they act as a preface of sorts. I may be missing Krakauer's point with this one, but I thought it was important to discuss. That excerpt may make it seem like women are just confused in sexual encounters. It may make it seem like if a woman were to allege assault or misconduct, that someone could respond saying, "well are you sure you didn't want it?" And that is exactly what some of the people did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)