BYU Rape Awareness Conference

[bsjkki]

Thoughts? https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/04/09/the-least-degree-of-allowance/

[bsjkki]

Please delete if this breaks in posting rules.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I could see this being discussed in the discussion forum if someone wants to post it there. There is a rape epidemic going on over all campuses in America not just BYU and the problem is they try to solve it internally instead of going with outside police.

[Storm Rider]

It is an interesting dynamic within rape survivor culture.  After reading the link and many of the comments it seems people have forgot the simple lessons of life.  The victim of this crime appears to be absolved of all potential contributing factors - it is as if they are a clean slate, with no responsibility, totally innocent of and a malevolent force just appeared on the scene and raped them.  No, before anyone's hackles get blown out of proportion, the context I am addressing is based on the article and those individuals who are have consciously chosen behaviors that break the Honor Code - i.e. drinking, in a boy's bedroom, etc., etc., etc.,

My point is that everyone knows that rape is absolutely, without exception evil, wrong, and unforgivable.  However, to absolve the survivor of all guilt seems to run against common sense.  I always taught my children that they were responsible for their choices and actions.  If they put themselves in situations where they would make poor choices who is at fault?  That was a common question in our home.  If you make poor choices you have a responsibility for at least some degree of the results.  You are not innocent; you are complicit in the results.

I understand that the survivor has just gone through an atrocious experience, but that does not absolve them of all wrong.  It seems like it is time to approach this from an adult position of responsibility.  We need to remember that choices have consequences.  If we put ourselves in dangerous - both physical and spiritual - situations it is not completely someone's else's fault.  Does this make sense?

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

It is an interesting dynamic within rape survivor culture.  After reading the link and many of the comments it seems people have forgot the simple lessons of life.  The victim of this crime appears to be absolved of all potential contributing factors - it is as if they are a clean slate, with no responsibility, totally innocent of and a malevolent force just appeared on the scene and raped them.  No, before anyone's hackles get blown out of proportion, the context I am addressing is based on the article and those individuals who are have consciously chosen behaviors that break the Honor Code - i.e. drinking, in a boy's bedroom, etc., etc., etc.,

My point is that everyone knows that rape is absolutely, without exception evil, wrong, and unforgivable.  However, to absolve the survivor of all guilt seems to run against common sense.  I always taught my children that they were responsible for their choices and actions.  If they put themselves in situations where they would make poor choices who is at fault?  That was a common question in our home.  If you make poor choices you have a responsibility for at least some degree of the results.  You are not innocent; you are complicit in the results.

I understand that the survivor has just gone through an atrocious experience, but that does not absolve them of all wrong.  It seems like it is time to approach this from an adult position of responsibility.  We need to remember that choices have consequences.  If we put ourselves in dangerous - both physical and spiritual - situations it is not completely someone's else's fault.  Does this make sense?

I'm so appalled at the idea the survivor had anything to do with rape.  If in fact it was rape.  I know there are women that crave attention, but when it goes too far then no, is no.  I don't care if she allowed fondling, if it goes further...it's rape.  If she passed out after drinking, it's rape.  How can anyone say she's at fault?  The gentlemen will leave her alone, get her help, do whatever possible to see her life is protected.  Not take it from her, because being raped is akin to something close to death.  Something taken from them.  

I don't agree with your statement Storm, totally disagree.  No amount of responsibility allows for rape to be acceptable, except if the individual agrees to have sex, and then says it was rape.  If something changes their mind at the very last second...and they say no, it's rape if their refusal is ignored.  

Hate to even bring up Elizabeth Smart, but because she didn't flea from her captor, is she at fault?  Or any of the women out there that were too afraid to fight or have family members threatened, are they at fault?  I know you're going to say no, but in your post it seems there are degrees to where someone can be responsible for getting raped, including being drunk or being in a room alone with someone, etc.  Wrong, wrong, wrong...rape is rape.  The rapist should back down if told no.  I don't care if he thought he was given the ok, if the victim says no, that is final. 

ETA:  I read the BBC article about BYU's Honor Code.  I don't think I'd dare send my daughter to that school after hearing about it.  She'd have to remain silent, if she were breaking any of the codes, despite actually having been raped.  For fear of the consequences.  This code needs to be overhauled stat.  

Edited April 10, 2016 by Tacenda

[Calm]

I would like to first hear directly from BYU or read its policy without someone else's interpretation attached.

It appears to me that the problem is not the victim being blamed for the rape, but that s/he would be eld responsible for any honour code violations that were willing committed at the time.

Similar to how if police broke up a bar fight and one of the witnesses was a BYU student there drinking.  By giving testimony, he risks knowledge of his honour code violation coming to light.

If a woman or man reports a rape, this may mean behaviour related to the honour code may come to light.  It does not need to mean she or he is being held responsible in any sense for the rape any more than the drunk student sitting quietly at the bar is going to be held responsible for the two or more other patrons fighting but rather her/his own behaviour that would be in violation in absence of a rape.  A witness to the rape would have the same complication if s/he were participating in code violations at that time.

It is highly problematic because it may decrease reporting due to fear of held responsible for code violations (such as drinking, being in a guy's bedroom, etc).  The question would be if it is worth it to dismiss any violations that get reported when a more serious crime occurs, immunity so tospeak.  This might not be a bad idea, but only if they come forward on their own to avoid false reporting if they were accused of something themselves perhaps.  But what if someone thinks they are about to be reported so decides to turn in someone else and inflates the problem.

It would probably be best not to give full immunity but some form of probation if the witness or victim is willing to work with counselors.

I think it is essential to find out how victims and witnesses are being treated in actual situations before making any condemnations  based on potential problems.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Calm

[Traela]

I think Storm Rider's point is that the reason rapes at BYU are going unreported is too often they happen when the girl was already breaking the honor code.  The girl doesn't want to get in trouble for the actions that she chose, that would have been grounds for discipline without the rape.  What are officials to do?  Ignore the honor code violations because she "has been punished enough"?  Crack down because "rules are rules"?  Treat the honor code violation and the rape as two entirely separate issues?  

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

Again I feel the main problem is when schools investigate or campus police investigate, instead of outside police investigating. The school or campus police could protect the rapist if they're like a star athlete or someone with important ties and connections. It happens. Thats,why I always trust 3rd party police the most because they have no dog in the fight.

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm so appalled at the idea the survivor had anything to do with rape.  If in fact it was rape.  I know there are women that crave attention, but when it goes too far then no, is no.  I don't care if she allowed fondling, if it goes further...it's rape.  If she passed out after drinking, it's rape.  How can anyone say she's at fault?  The gentlemen will leave her alone, get her help, do whatever possible to see her life is protected.  Not take it from her, because being raped is akin to something close to death.  Something taken from them.  

I don't agree with your statement Storm, totally disagree.  No amount of responsibility allows for rape to be acceptable, except if the individual agrees to have sex, and then says it was rape.  If something changes their mind at the very last second...and they say no, it's rape if their refusal is ignored.  

I completely agree with this, Tacenda.  I do believe we are all responsible for our actions and choices, but the victim of a rape should never be blamed.  It's like stating that she was asking for it because of the way she was dressed, etc.  I do however believe there are circumstances and choices that are made by individuals that put them at a higher risk (for any type of violence or danger).  

But the rapist is the one who decides to force themselves on someone after they say "no" or decides to attack a victim.  That is their choice and they are 100% responsible.

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would like to first hear directly from BYU or read its policy without someone else's interpretation attached.

I'd like to see this too.  Does anyone know where to look for this or if it's posted anywhere online?

[bsjkki]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'd like to see this too.  Does anyone know where to look for this or if it's posted anywhere online?

https://policy.byu.edu/view/index.php?p=155

4. Victims of Sexual Misconduct

In order to protect their own and others’ safety, individuals who believe they have been subjected to Sexual Misconduct should make a report even if they have simultaneously been involved in other violations of university policy, such as use of alcohol or drugs. Violations of university policy or the Church Educational System Honor Code do not make a victim at fault for sexual violence or other forms of Sexual Misconduct and will be addressed separately from the Sexual Misconduct allegation.

 

Students know if they are sexually assaulted while breaking any other honor code violation, they will be investigated for it.  Most likely, all victims of sexual assault will be interrogated to find out if they broke any rules.

[ALarson]

Here's this from the BYU Daily Universe:

http://universe.byu.edu/2016/04/08/byu-hosts-rape-awareness-conference/

And this has some more information that contains a statement by someone who attended (I'm not sure if this link is allowed, so mods delete if not):

https://medium.com/@cineshua/byu-has-a-rape-problem-87d5820e4807#.ccirb5cpg

Quote:

Quote

I was at this event tonight — things got a little heated for a minute because a survivor student brought up honor code…(because she had been through them twice for sexual assault) and directly addressed the title IX coordinator, who stood up and responded that they do not apologize for abiding by an honor code so integral to BYU.

 

 

This is also interesting (most rape kits do not make it to the crime lab, but I'd need to read more regarding the reasons for this), it's a BYU study:

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=39226926&nid=148

.

Edited April 10, 2016 by ALarson

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

It is an interesting dynamic within rape survivor culture.  After reading the link and many of the comments it seems people have forgot the simple lessons of life.  The victim of this crime appears to be absolved of all potential contributing factors - it is as if they are a clean slate, with no responsibility, totally innocent of and a malevolent force just appeared on the scene and raped them.  No, before anyone's hackles get blown out of proportion, the context I am addressing is based on the article and those individuals who are have consciously chosen behaviors that break the Honor Code - i.e. drinking, in a boy's bedroom, etc., etc., etc.,

My point is that everyone knows that rape is absolutely, without exception evil, wrong, and unforgivable.  However, to absolve the survivor of all guilt seems to run against common sense.  I always taught my children that they were responsible for their choices and actions.  If they put themselves in situations where they would make poor choices who is at fault?  That was a common question in our home.  If you make poor choices you have a responsibility for at least some degree of the results.  You are not innocent; you are complicit in the results.

I understand that the survivor has just gone through an atrocious experience, but that does not absolve them of all wrong.  It seems like it is time to approach this from an adult position of responsibility.  We need to remember that choices have consequences.  If we put ourselves in dangerous - both physical and spiritual - situations it is not completely someone's else's fault.  Does this make sense?

No for me at least it does not make sense.  Rape is never excusable even if the victim makes some poor choices that put them in a situation that could lead to something bad.  The victim should not be made to feel guilt or shame when raped.  No means no.  It is time for the LDS Church to emphasize this. The fact that the holy and mighty BYU honor code may be invoked to evict a student from the collage because they may be "culpable" in part is sickening. The fact that it would cause the victim to be reluctant to report is evil in my view at least.   I think you would do well to stop after your comment above that I bolded.

 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'm so appalled at the idea the survivor had anything to do with rape.  If in fact it was rape.  I know there are women that crave attention, but when it goes too far then no, is no.  I don't care if she allowed fondling, if it goes further...it's rape.  If she passed out after drinking, it's rape.  How can anyone say she's at fault?  The gentlemen will leave her alone, get her help, do whatever possible to see her life is protected.  Not take it from her, because being raped is akin to something close to death.  Something taken from them.  

I don't agree with your statement Storm, totally disagree.  No amount of responsibility allows for rape to be acceptable, except if the individual agrees to have sex, and then says it was rape.  If something changes their mind at the very last second...and they say no, it's rape if their refusal is ignored.  

Hate to even bring up Elizabeth Smart, but because she didn't flea from her captor, is she at fault?  Or any of the women out there that were too afraid to fight or have family members threatened, are they at fault?  I know you're going to say no, but in your post it seems there are degrees to where someone can be responsible for getting raped, including being drunk or being in a room alone with someone, etc.  Wrong, wrong, wrong...rape is rape.  The rapist should back down if told no.  I don't care if he thought he was given the ok, if the victim says no, that is final. 

ETA:  I read the BBC article about BYU's Honor Code.  I don't think I'd dare send my daughter to that school after hearing about it.  She'd have to remain silent, if she were breaking any of the codes, despite actually having been raped.  For fear of the consequences.  This code needs to be overhauled stat.  

WELL SAID!!!!!

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I would like to first hear directly from BYU or read its policy without someone else's interpretation attached.

It appears to me that the problem is not the victim being blamed for the rape, but that s/he would be eld responsible for any honour code violations that were willing committed at the time.

Similar to how if police broke up a bar fight and one of the witnesses was a BYU student there drinking.  By giving testimony, he risks knowledge of his honour code violation coming to light.

If a woman or man reports a rape, this may mean behaviour related to the honour code may come to light.  It does not need to mean she or he is being held responsible in any sense for the rape any more than the drunk student sitting quietly at the bar is going to be held responsible for the two or more other patrons fighting but rather her/his own behaviour that would be in violation in absence of a rape.  A witness to the rape would have the same complication if s/he were participating in code violations at that time.

It is highly problematic because it may decrease reporting due to fear of held responsible for code violations (such as drinking, being in a guy's bedroom, etc).  The question would be if it is worth it to dismiss any violations that get reported when a more serious crime occurs, immunity so tospeak.  This might not be a bad idea, but only if they come forward on their own to avoid false reporting if they were accused of something themselves perhaps.  But what if someone thinks they are about to be reported so decides to turn in someone else and inflates the problem.

It would probably be best not to give full immunity but some form of probation if the witness or victim is willing to work with counselors.

I think it is essential to find out how victims and witnesses are being treated in actual situations before making any condemnations  based on potential problems.

The fact is if the honor code is the ultimate prime directive and the victim may have done something to violate it (like drinking) and the victim fears expulsion if the victim reports the rape because of fear of expulsion then the victim will likely not report. 

Quite simple really. 

[Teancum]

57 minutes ago, Traela said:

I think Storm Rider's point is that the reason rapes at BYU are going unreported is too often they happen when the girl was already breaking the honor code.  The girl doesn't want to get in trouble for the actions that she chose, that would have been grounds for discipline without the rape.  What are officials to do?  Ignore the honor code violations because she "has been punished enough"?  Crack down because "rules are rules"?  Treat the honor code violation and the rape as two entirely separate issues?  

 

Yes, in such cases they should ignore the honor code for the higher road of assisting the victim. 

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Students know if they are sexually assaulted while breaking any other honor code violation, they will be investigated for it.  Most likely, all victims of sexual assault will be interrogated to find out if they broke any rules.

And you know this how?

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The fact that the holy and mighty BYU honor code may be invoked to evict a student from the collage because they may be "culpable" in part is sickening.

 

The BYU Sexual Misconduct Policy does not hold a rape victim culpable in any way for the rape as can be seen above.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The fact is if the honor code is the ultimate prime directive and the victim may have done something to violate it (like drinking) and the victim fears expulsion if the victim reports the rape because of fear of expulsion then the victim will likely not report. 

The question for me is if the actual policy and treatment of victims contribute to the fear or if it is primarily the rumours that have been created about treatment or something else. Different ways of addressing the problem depending on the actual causes are required.

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

The BYU Sexual Misconduct Policy does not hold a rape victim culpable in any way for the rape as can be seen above.

If the student/victim fears expulsion at all for reporting then it absolutely does hold the victim culpable. 

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

This is worth a read: http://www.inquisitr.com/2979357/byu-rape-culture-associate-dean-of-students-does-not-apologize-for-honor-code-that-treats-victims-as-suspects/

[smac97]

2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Again I feel the main problem is when schools investigate or campus police investigate, instead of outside police investigating. The school or campus police could protect the rapist if they're like a star athlete or someone with important ties and connections. It happens. Thats,why I always trust 3rd party police the most because they have no dog in the fight.

I have an acquaintance, a BYU student, who was sexually assaulted in Utah Valley (not at BYU).  The Utah County Attorney investigated and - after a somewhat unreasonable delay - filed felony charges against the alleged perp (I use "alleged" here more out of reflex, as I know the victim well and am utterly persuaded that she is telling the truth).  A few days after the charged were filed, the perp - who is not a BYU student and had possibly been stalking the victim - attacked her while she was working on campus at BYU and threatened her.  She reported this to the BYU police, who performed an investigation and turned their findings over to the Utah County Attorney's Office, who promptly filed additional felony charges against the perp.  For reasons I don't understand, the perp is now facing four felony charges (two 1st degree, one 2nd, and one 3rd), but he has not yet been arrested.  That is frustrating for the victim, but she's coping.

I also have an acquaintance who is a Provo City law enforcement officer.  He has indicated that BYU Police generally do a very good job and investigating on-campus crimes, particularly sex-related crimes, and timely turning them over to the Utah County Attorney's Office.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

The BYU Sexual Misconduct Policy does not hold a rape victim culpable in any way for the rape as can be seen above.

That is what makes this so puzzling.  People find it perfectly acceptable to punish a rapist (I am one of these people - I think a rapist should lose all ability to rape another individual without exception), but they find it repugnant that a survivor will be punished NOT FOR THE RAPE, but for what she may have been doing wrong prior to the rape.  It is as if when one is a rape survivor you are immediately absolved of all wrong.

The topic is so emotional that the mere mention of  the victim being culpable of wrong doing merits  the accuser of immediate burning at the stake!  Why?  

Being a rapist is one thing and violating the honor code is another.  Because you got raped  does not mean you did not violate the honor code?  Why is this so difficult to grasp? 

Edited April 10, 2016 by Storm Rider

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

If the student/victim fears expulsion at all for reporting then it absolutely does hold the victim culpable. 

I think this is inflammatory and unfair.

Say that a 20-year old BYU student has a habit of sneaking out of the dorms late at night to meet up with friends at Kiwanis Park to drink and smoke marijuana.  One night this student and his friends are attacked, beaten, and robbed of their money and booze and weed by unknown assailants.  The BYU student could be hesitant to report the crime, not because he is not a victim, but because the circumstances of the crime demonstrate the likelihood of A) a violation of state/federal laws regarding the use of alcohol and marijuana, and B) a violation of BYU's honor code.

So if the student is hesitant to report, it's not because he is being held "culpable" for being the victim of a crime, but of being held "culpable" for his own, separate-but-contemporaneous misconduct.

Now, there is a secondary question of whether that separate-but-contemporaneous misconduct (sneaking out, drinking, smoking weed) "contributed" in some sense contributed to the BYU student's status as being the victim of a crime.  It seems hard to deny that the student, to some extent, put himself in harm's way by sneaking out late at night, and possessing booze and weed.  Had he not done these things, he would not have been victimized.

There are some principles of law, which although clearly not directly on-point, somewhat illustrate this point.  The first that comes to mind is "Contributory Negligence":

Quote

Contributory negligence in common-law jurisdictions is generally a defense to a claim based on negligence, an action in tort. This principle is relevant to the determination of liability and is applicable when plaintiffs/claimants have, through their own negligence, contributed to the harm they suffered. It can also be applied by the court in a tort matter irrespective of whether it was pleaded as a defense.

For example, a pedestrian crosses a road negligently and is hit by a driver who was driving negligently. Since the pedestrian has also contributed to the accident, they may be barred from complete and full recovery of damages from the driver (or their insurer) because the accident was less likely to occur if it weren't for their failure to keep a proper lookout. Another example of contributory negligence is where a plaintiff actively disregards warnings or fails to take reasonable steps for his or her safety, then assumes a certain level of risk in a given activity; such as diving in shallow water without checking the depth first.

Another is "Assumption of the Risk":

Quote

Assumption of risk is a defense in the law of torts, which bars or reduces a plaintiff's right to recovery against a negligent tortfeasorif the defendant can demonstrate that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks at issue inherent to the dangerous activity in which he was participating at the time of his or her injury.

What is usually meant by assumption of risk is more precisely termed primary or "express" assumption of risk. It occurs when the plaintiff has either expressly or implicitly relieved the defendant of the duty to mitigate or relieve the risk causing the injury from which the cause of action arises. It operates as a complete bar to liability on the theory that upon assumption of the risk, there is no longer aduty of care running from the defendant to the plaintiff; without a duty owed by the defendant, there can be no negligence on his part. However, primary assumption of risk is not a blanket exemption from liability for the operators of a dangerous activity. 

Another is the "Duty to Mitigate":

Quote

Mitigation in law is the principle that a party who has suffered loss (from a tort or breach of contract) has to take reasonable action to minimize the amount of the loss suffered. As stated by the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal in Redpath Industries Ltd. v. Cisco (The),^[1] "It is well established that a party who suffers damages as a result of a breach of contract has a duty to mitigate those damages, that is to say that the wrongdoer cannot be called upon to pay for avoidable losses which would result in an increase in the quantum of damages payable to the injured party." The onus on showing a failure to mitigate damages is on the defendant.

Another is the general principle that the courts will generally not "rescue" a person from his own bad decisions.  See, e.g., here (emphasis added):

Quote

The dispositive issue on the battery charge was whether Paul and his nephew truthfully testified that Walter attacked Paul without provocation, or whether Walter truthfully testified that Paul struck him first and then threatened him with a knife.  None of the claimed evidentiary errors bore directly on that question.  Walter fully and effectively presented his version of the events, and he used several witnesses to extensively explore the issue of Paul’s credibility, temper and hostility toward him.  When Walter chose to represent himself, a decision he concedes was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, he assumed the risk that he would lose certain benefits of counsel.  See State v. Clutter, 230 Wis. 2d 472, 477-78, 602 N.W.2d 324 (Ct. App. 1999) (This court will not rescue the defendant from “the folly of his choice to represent himself.”).  One of those benefits was familiarity with the rules of evidence.

And here (emphasis added):

Quote

Appellant further contends that there is a difference between "fees" and "wages" as those terms relate to the Act; fees being the gross amounts appellant paid appellee, and wages being the net amounts appellee retained for himself after expenses. The Act does not specifically define either term, leaving us to apply ordinary meanings in everyday usage. Webster's 7th New Collegiate Dictionary defines "wage" as "a payment, usually of money for labor or services usually according to contract and on an hourly, daily or piecework basis . . . especially for physical labor." "Fee" is offered as a synonym; it "applies to the price asked or paid for services of a physician, lawyer, artist or other professional." Clearly, it is not mandated by definition or otherwise that one make any deductions before calculating the pulpwooder's wages, particularly in view of the fact that appellant deducted the workers' compensation premiums from his gross, rather than net, receipts. It appearing that appellant made an election, this court will not rescue it from its decision.

None of this is directly on-point in a sexual assault scenario because, unlike a tort or contract dispute, there is no percentage of culpability to be divvied up between the litigants.  The perpetrator of a sexual assault is 100% culpable for that crime.  I think there is no moral or legal case for the proposition that any percentage of culpability can be attributed to the victim.  It is within this context that I fully concur with those who condemn a "blame the victim" mindset.

Nevertheless, I think we as a society feign ignorance if we pretend that a victim of a crime is utterly incapable of contributing to him being in harm's way.  It beggars common sense to suggest that the BYU student above did not put himself in harm's way.  He made unwise choices that put himself at increased - and ultimately realized - risk of harm.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Teancum]

Smac

All the sophistry you employee to defend the Church and BYU at all costs is for naught. 

It does not matter.  There is nothing that justifies rape even if the victim does stupid things to put themselves in a situation that could put them at risk.

Nothing.

Period.

And if the victim is in a culture that creates a dynamic that would cause them to be heaped with guilt and shame as a result of the crime inflicted on them... well that is simple wrong.

But at least you admit that the perpetrator is 100% responsible for the crime.

Now let's create an environment where the victim does not have to bear shame for it.

Just read what Elizabeth Smart had to say about this in regards to her horrible experience.