Cultural historian Camille Paglia, a very un-politically correct lesbian, to be sure, on why the modern campus cannot comprehend evil:
Despite hysterical propaganda about our “rape culture,” the majority of campus incidents being carelessly described as sexual assault are not felonious rape (involving force or drugs) but oafish hookup melodramas, arising from mixed signals and imprudence on both sides.
Colleges should stick to academics and stop their infantilizing supervision of students’ dating lives, an authoritarian intrusion that borders on violation of civil liberties. Real crimes should be reported to the police, not to haphazard and ill-trained campus grievance committees.
When evil (as in sexual assault) is defined as that which makes you feel bad, in retrospect, then there is no language left to describe, or help defend against, true evil.
In a similar vein, Margaret Wente on the new campus sex puritans:
Sixty years ago, sexual behaviour among the young caused deep alarm among the puritanical religious right. Today, it causes deep alarm among the puritanical progressive left. Like their forebears, they are doing their best to restrict and regulate it.
This weekend, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that makes universities redefine consensual sex. From now on, students must effectively obtain the “affirmative consent” of their partners, which must be “ongoing” every step of the way. Those accused of violating the consent rule will be judged on the preponderance of the evidence. Perpetrators face suspension or expulsion, and universities face heavy penalties for failure to enforce.
The new measure is designed to stem a tidal wave of rape on campus that, in fact, does not exist. (Violent crime, including sexual assault, has been in decline for 20 years.) Even so, universities across North America have set up vast new administrative apparatuses to deal with the crisis. Many of them have also expanded the meaning of “sexual violence” to include anything that makes you feel bad.
Not dissimilar from the way the campus free speech movement of the sixties has morphed into the rule of progressive speech codes that stifle debate which veers away from progressive orthodoxy.
(As I posted recently, gay relationships among students also become embroiled in these star-chamber proceedings—On Campus, Absence of Due Process Extended to Gays.)
6 Comments for “The New Puritans”
posted by Houndentenor on
Such nonsense. I’m old enough to remember when Camille Paglia actually had decent things to say, before she decided to just say inflammatory bullshit to get attention. Sexual assault on college campuses has been a problem for a long time. The approach has been to tell women what to do and not to do. That hasn’t worked. It hasn’t worked because while there are certainly things women can do to reduce their risks of being raped, the problem with rape is that there are men who rape, not that women need to change how they dress, where they go, how much they drink, etc. Putting the onus completely on women makes it sound like men just can’t help themselves which is ridiculous (and kind of sexist). That’s what the talk about “rape culture” is about. The conversation is only to the women and almost never to the men. The other problem, and perhaps more insidious is that universities want to handle what should be police matters internally. So instead of rapists being prosecuted, they are dealt with as if they were being accused of cheating on an exam. These matters are often dealt with by hushing them up. Ask a women who’s been in college in the last decade what happened if/when one of her classmates was raped and this is the story you’re most likely to hear. Magnify that if the student is well-connected or a star athlete. This is a big problem and Stephen’s dismissive attitude is morally repugnant.
posted by Jorge on
Despite hysterical propaganda about our “rape culture,” the majority of campus incidents being carelessly described as sexual assault are not felonious rape (involving force or drugs) but oafish hookup melodramas, arising from mixed signals and imprudence on both sides.
It’s always amusing when someone puts into words a suspicion I can’t figure out how to say. Too often, I find the trumpeting both cathartic and stupid.
No, I do not support California’s law, for reasons that have already been aired. But I expect people to actually prove and argue their case. This citation isn’t looking good, because “oafish hookup melodramas, arising from mixed signals and imprudence on both sides” fits most criminal definitions of sexual assault (that was a careless description). It’s just that it’s not provable.
The rest of the article is even worse. Perhaps the author has passed the age group of fear, if she doesn’t realize the defining down of of sexual assault is not pampering women, but buttressing them against more evils than any one person is likely to count.
Colleges should stick to academics and stop their infantilizing supervision of students’ dating lives, an authoritarian intrusion that borders on violation of civil liberties. Real crimes should be reported to the police, not to haphazard and ill-trained campus grievance committees.
I think I’ve said my piece on reporting stuff to the police here already.
Civil liberties? You don’t even have a right to be there in the first place! Colleges and universities can be as strict and authoritarian as the people who give money to them and share an interest in their success and prestige would like. If the police and district attorneys won’t take the case because the moon is in the house of Pieces instead of Aquarius, or because investigating minor crimes is beneath their dignity, then colleges and universities are empowered to do what they have to do to stop abborrent behavior by people who think they are slick enough to get away with it. It is only that they are not allowed to discriminate in such a way that it means some people by virtue of who they are do not have the same rights as everyone else.
Until women have in practice the same right as men do to enter college relationships free of “oafish hookup melodramas, arising from mixed signals and imprudence on both sides*”, then male discrimination cases will have a steep hill to climb. Let them.
*: i.e., it’s the female victim’s fault. Yes it’s both people’s fault, but because men are rarely the alleged victims you’ll rarely have a situation in which the blame the victim ruling is being applied against a man.
When someone comes to you with a problem, you should help them deal with it so they can feel better, not shut it down and pretend it doesn’t exist. For a conservative that means running the risk that the person will not take your advice and continue to engage in vice. In exchange when you meet someone who has no other options, you are offering something that will help them and bring them back to feeling normal enough. Women should not have to worry about minor sexual assaults, but they do.
Where are the smart conservatives when you need them? Linda Chavez dealt with the subject of campus sexual assault much more intelligently in a column several months ago–and that was only one of several topics in it.
http://townhall.com/columnists/lindachavez/2014/04/18/the-problem-with-dartmouth-n1826068#!
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. It is probably always problematical when folks (no matter their politics or faith or gender or sexuality) — who have not been the typical undergraduate age in a awhile — appoint themselves experts on the ‘dating scene’ on a college campus.
2. All students have a right to pursue an education without you know, being beaten up or assaulted or raped. Most — but not all — rape’s involve a female victim and a male rapist. Again, that is not always the case, but that is most of the cases. Much of the focus should be on changing male behavior and attitudes and not blaming women.
3. I doubt that their is a public college or university in the United States that cares too much about the dating/sex life of its students. It does care about things like STDs, domestic sexual violence, rape, etc.
4. I have not seen the California law in question. However, (absent the new law) if ‘Bob’ gets consent from ‘Sue’ to have sexual intercourse, does that mean that ‘Sue’ is no longer able to tell Bob to stop or not pursue certain positions or additional partners or toys?
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
–gay relationships among students also become embroiled in these star-chamber proceedings.
Well, any relationship — gay or straight — where one student says that he was raped or sexually assaulted by another student, is going to be an issue for the University (if not also the State law enforcement). University Student-Teacher relationships are also going to be a problem, mainly because of issues of power and favoritism. I am not sure why this is a surprise to some people.
If a student makes a serious complaint, some people seem to be implying that the campus should just ignore it or not take into the account that fact that a student could be living (in a dorm or off campus situation) with or having to go to class with someone who assaulted/raped him.
posted by Houndentenor on
I think the entire problem (or at least 99% of it) is that the university is clumsily handling what should be handled by the police and the DA’s office. The university’s interest is not that of the student but of protecting the reputation of the school. That interest is often at odds with that of the student who has been raped. This not only shouldn’t be happening but it shouldn’t be legally possible for it to happen. Felonies should be handled by the local criminal justice system, not by a school ethical body that can bare deal with cheating and plagiarism complaints.
posted by Jorge on
Well, now! One author says most of these incidents “are not felonious rape (involving force or drugs) but oafish hookup melodramas, arising from mixed signals and imprudence on both sides”, while a poster here says “Felonies should be handled by the local criminal justice system.” Neither one is providing any evidence to show which of the two we are actually dealing with most of the time.
If we do not even have enough information to identify what the problem is, then we cannot even begin to make a public policy decision on it.