| UVA Rape Story Collapses; Duke Lacrosse Redux | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 5 2014, 01:45 PM (60,453 Views) | |
| abb | Feb 2 2015, 04:55 AM Post #751 |
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397627/banning-sorority-girls-uva-frat-parties-katherine-timpf February 2, 2015 4:00 AM Banning Sorority Girls from UVA Frat Parties “Feminists” say that young women can’t make up their own minds. By Katherine Timpf Everyone is outraged because national sorority chapters banned University of Virginia members from going to fraternity parties last weekend out of concern that they would get raped. And they should be. This is ridiculous, offensive, and, of course, infantilizing. The consensus among feminists was that, as one UVA woman told the Washington Post, the ban sends the message that women “cannot look out for themselves or make their own decisions.” Yep. Now you get it. But here’s the thing: This has been much of the push of modern feminism, particularly on college campuses, all along. Look at California and its “affirmative consent” law. This “feminist” law demands that state-funded schools have a policy clarifying that any sex without “affirmative,” “ongoing” consent is assault. After all, defining rape as forcing sex on someone who said no or who is unable to say no is not enough — we must assume that a woman, in general, is unable to say no. It’s too hard. “Feminist” professors in Canada are pushing for policies that would require professors to call on women first in class. Without this mandate, women will apparently be too afraid to speak up before a man has already spoken. Some law professors stopped teaching rape law after “feminist” activists cried out that it could be too “triggering” for some women to learn about it. (The irony that this would result in fewer people capable of putting away rapists apparently has gone unnoticed.) And the list goes on and on. If we have so-called feminists out there who believe that female students are too weak to say no to sex, too terrified and inept to answer a question in class unless a man has answered first, and too sensitive to learn the things they need to know to succeed in their careers — why is it surprising that some activists might say young women can’t handle a party? Of course, this sorority incident provoked so much criticism largely because officials fell into the trap of what modern feminists decry as “victim-blaming.” That is, the sorority officials focused on women as potential victims and aimed to teach them how to avoid that fate. The preferable course, these critics say, is to teach rapists to not rape. But along with this — as many in the modern feminist movement have pointed out — banning women from frat parties assumes that women are too stupid to make their own decisions and too weak to live their own lives without intrusive intervention. And they’re exactly right. Now, if only the same women who are angry about this treatment could recognize how many of their own causes give women the same treatment. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 2 2015, 05:03 AM Post #752 |
|
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2015/02/president-sullivan-discusses-recent-upcoming-initiatives Sullivan weighs in on Boys Bid Night, discusses upcoming campus safety initiatives Ad Hoc Group to assess, improve University climate, culture by Kayla Eanes | Feb 02 2015 | 4 hours ago University President Teresa Sullivan addressed the University community Friday with an update on recent and upcoming initiatives, and discussed the ongoing University self-examination brought on by the critiques of last semester. Sullivan also responded to questions concerning the letter from the National Panhellenic Conference requesting University sorority chapters to refrain from participating in Boys Bid Night. “I have not spoken with national sorority leaders, nor did they consult us about the letter that they sent,” Sullivan said. “I would encourage you to talk to our own sorority leaders because I am not certain this came without consultation.” In response to a question on how she would respond were a sorority member at the University, Sullivan said that while she cannot advise specific student reactions, sorority members themselves likely have the best idea of how to appropriately respond. “It was the choice of those of you in sororities to join the organization, and you must decide the extent of which you wish to abide by the policies of the organization,” she said. Sullivan said that while discussion of the sanctions is important, students must be responsible for making the best decision according to their consciences. “I do always think that dialogue is helpful in these situations, because there are misunderstandings, especially [in] only communicating with each other in paper and press releases,” she said. “Ultimately I trust the maturity of our students to make these good decisions.” Overall, Sullivan sought to focus discussion around larger University initiatives, such as the Ad Hoc Group on Climate and Culture. “At the beginning of this new year at U.Va., we are deeply engaged in a period of institutional self-examination, with the goal of assessing and improving the climate and culture at our University,” Sullivan said. “To lead this work, I assembled an Ad Hoc Group on Climate and Culture that includes administrators, faculty, staff, students, parents, alumni and members of the Board of Visitors.” Sullivan said the Ad Hoc Group considered both the cultural roots of harmful student behavior and how to implement effective practices to limit such behavior as a University community. “We divided the issues into three categories — prevention, response and culture — and we now have a working group of students, faculty, staff, parents, and alumni assigned to each category,” she said. “These groups will be working carefully, but briskly, [and] will deliver interim reports by March 16 and final reports by April 30.” Sullivan announced the University’s participation in a sexual assault climate survey organized through the Association of American Universities in April. The University is one of 28 schools participating in the survey. “The questionnaire is being designed by a team of researchers with experience in sexual violence,” Sullivan said. “The participating schools enroll more than 800,000 students, making the survey one of the largest ever on sexual assault.” The team of researchers conducting the survey is headed by University of North Carolina professor Sandra Martin. Data from the survey will be available by July, Sullivan said, allowing the results to inform education and prevention strategies for the next academic year. “People know that most forms of sexual violence are seriously underreported,” Sullivan said, “One of the things a climate survey does, that’s one with a large enough response rate, is it lets you estimate the incidents of sexual violence in a different way from reported cases.” Sullivan also outlined some of the initiatives and programs emerging from the Cornerstone Plan — a strategic plan submitted in 2013 regarding the future of the University. Programs developed as a part of the Cornerstone Plan include student programs such as the Meriwether Lewis Institute for Citizen Leadership, the Total Advising Initiative and a variety of co-curricular and extracurricular international programs. “Another strategy in the Cornerstone Plan is to create a series of pan-University research institutes to allow faculty teams to collaborate on research while generating new degree programs, minors, and certificate programs for students,” Sullivan said. After a $3 billion campaign in 2013, Sullivan said the University is focusing on attracting private support for three key priorities: retaining and recruiting top faculty, providing outstanding students with need-based scholarships and restoring the Jeffersonian buildings around Grounds. "Just as we summoned all of our intellectual capability to study and plan for the complex work of the Rotunda restoration, we will now summon all of the intellectual resources of our great university to make this a stronger, safer university,” Sullivan said. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 2 2015, 05:03 AM Post #753 |
|
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2015/02/alumni-speak-out-against-boys-bid-night-restrictions Alumni speak out against Boys Bid Night restrictions Alpha Delta Pi sorority alumni send letter, argue rights violation by Caitlyn Seed | Feb 01 2015 | 5 hours ago nsalumnihallmbronfin Marshall Bronfin | The Cavalier Daily National sorority presidents requested National Panhellenic Conference sororities with University charters refrain from participating in the 2015 Boys Bid Night last Saturday in a move which generated discontent and confusion from alumni and sorority members. To adhere to the ban, sorority chapters were largely required to schedule mandatory social events or meetings for new pledges and members in place of organized bid night activities. Despite overall compliance, many students and alumni pushed back against the new restrictions and vocalized their opposition. Class of 2014 College alumnus Jake Berman, former president of Pi Lambda Phi fraternity, said he was entirely opposed to the ban. “I think the ban does two things: the most important is that it takes away the freedom of the women within the sororities,” Berman said. “It also puts fraternities in a bad light — [it] makes it seem like all fraternity men are unfit to be around sorority girls.” Berman said that following the University’s controversial fall semester — during which Rolling Stone published an article, now discredited, describing a gang rape by Phi Kappa Psi fraternity brothers in fall 2012 — the ban only perpetuated the false image of the University and its Greek organizations as unsafe environments for women. “This ban on going out is spurred from the Rolling Stone incident,” Berman said. “I think it’s ridiculous to think that the entire University population of women is unsafe around the Greek population of men at the University.” Berman also took issue with the decision because he believed it did not provide students agency. “I think that on the national level, it really makes it seem like students at the University are not allowed to make their own choices,” Berman said. “It makes fraternity men at the University seem dangerous.” Berman’s stance echoes many of the protests and complaints on Grounds. In a letter dated Jan. 31, more than 60 alumni of the Alpha Delta Pi sorority addressed a letter to Tammie Pinkston, international president of Alpha Delta Pi, arguing that while the concern for safety is valid, the ban marks a violation of individual rights. “We fail to see how [the ban] can possibly address the actual problem of sexual assault,” the letter read. “Sexual assault occurs at every single university, at parties and outside parties, to Greek women and to non-Greek women. These women are adults and their self-judgment should be trusted.” The alumni said that decisions coming from a national level — such as this one — make women involved in Greek life feel infantilized rather than empowered and safe. “We realize most of us have not set foot on Rugby Road in many years and things have changed, as they always do,” the letter read. “If there are particular facets of sorority participation in [Boy’s] Bid Night at only [the University] that are disturbing to the NPC member Presidents, perhaps those facets should have been addressed specifically.” Class of 2014 College alumnus Katie McCafferty said that the responsibility for making Boys Bid Night a safe event should lie with both fraternities and sororities. “[The National Chapters] do seem like they have the girls’ best interest at heart, but I also think that the fraternities need to step up a little bit too,” McCafferty said. “The national fraternity chapters should be the ones sending out a letter, even just something informal requesting to take it easy this year at Boys Bid [Night].” McCafferty, like Berman, agreed that safety should be a top concern for sororities and fraternities alike, but that the ban is not the most effective way to achieve this goal. “It’s just a very complex problem,” McCafferty said of safety on Grounds. “I don’t think there’s a very easy answer.” |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 2 2015, 02:52 PM Post #754 |
|
http://www.cotwa.info/2015/02/sorority-sisters-at-univ-of-virginia.html Monday, February 2, 2015 Sorority sisters at Univ. of Virginia now realize the 'war on rape' treats women like children -- they were the last to find out At the University of Virginia -- which is to rape what Loch Ness is to real monsters -- fraternities celebrated "bid night" Saturday night, but unlike previous years, sorority sisters did not go house to house sharing drinks with friends. This year, in the wake of the hysteria ginned up by the Rolling Stone article about a gang rape that never happened, the sorority sisters were ordered by their national chapters to stay home. The sorority sisters had a conniption because it dawned on them that they are being treated like children in the "war on rape." The sorority sisters were the last to find out. The fact is, the premise and the animating impulse of the "war on rape" from the outset has been to treat women like children, and men like predators. The fact that some women are just noticing this suggests it didn't affect them until now. The sexual grievance industry has modeled its approach to waging the war on campus rape on the law's treatment of child victims. Child victims are rightfully treated differently by our justice system, and there are special rules in criminal and civil law to foster the reporting of harm to children (because children are unlikely to report the harm to themselves) and to insure that the process treats children with sensitivity. The centerpiece of the President's war on campus rape -- the "It's On Us" campaign -- is premised on absolving young women of responsibility for their own well-being when it comes to sexual assault (because that would be "victim blaming") while placing that burden on -- no, not the rapists -- innocent young men who are told it's their responsibility to rescue tipsy damsels-in-distress from sexual assault. The sorority sisters of the University of Virginia probably thought they were independent, strong women who can chart their own courses. Now they realize they are, in fact, the pathetic children of "Its On Us" who need daddy-surrogates to save them. Little did they know. Like children, women can't be counted upon to report their own victimization, according to the sexual grievance industry, so to encourage them, policies have been enacted to diminish and even eliminate the due process rights of college men accused of sexual assault. The thinking goes, if it's easier to find men responsible for sexual assault, more women will report. (What the sexual grievance industry didn't bother to consider is that their policies also make it easier to find the innocent responsible for rapes they didn't commit -- but, of course, under the prevailing narrative, there are no "innocents" accused of sexual assault.) As a result, we have a rule mandating that the standard of proof for sexual assault -- but for no other infraction -- be lowered to the lowest possible: preponderance of the evidence. To make it even easier for women to report, California's new "affirmative consent" law, which governs sexual assault on college campuses and is being copied on campuses around the country, shifts the burden of proving consent from the school to the accused. The very essence of rape law is the absence of consent, so shifting the burden of proving the sine qua non of rape to the accused makes rape a presumptive crime any time there's an accusation. (The Washington Supreme Court recently held that a law in that state that shifted this burden of proving consent in criminal rape cases was unconstitutional, and hopefully the California law will also be overturned.) When college men and women engage in mutually tipsy sex, many schools improperly single out the man for discipline -- because that fits the prevailing narrative that when it comes to sex, the man is not only a predator, he's the only adult in the room. (Duke University Dean of Students Sue Wasiolek was asked what would happen if two students got drunk to the point of incapacity, and then had sex. "Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex," said Wasiolek.) Even Brett Sokolow, the most prominent anti-rape advocate on American college campuses, says this practice is discrimination against men. The reformers are hard at work to make sexual assault proceedings even more child-friendly for women. At Syracuse University, a sexual-violence work group wants the school to dispense with actual "hearings" and structure the investigation of sexual assault claims to "limit the retelling of the incident" -- because, you see, in "he said-she said" disputes where an adjudication of guilt can be life-altering for the accused and typically depends on the accuser's account of the incident, the accuser's delicate sensitivities trump any silly old search for truth and justice. At Stanford, one of the organizers of a demonstration called “Carry that Weight” ant-rape demonstration wants to eliminate the burden of proof for rape altogether "because essentially burden of proof is a defense of the perpetrator.” At the University of Virginia, a council of student leaders wants the state legislature to enact "Closed Criminal Trials" for rape. What's happening on college campuses is nothing new. In the criminal context, the sexual grievance industry has been hard at work for decades making law and public policy as child-friendly for women as possible.For example, everyone would agree that a child accuser should be anonymous, but should adult accusers be anonymous in the news media? Of course not, and they aren't -- except when it comes to rape. Feminist Naomi Wolf maintains that allowing rape accusers to be anonymous treats them like children in need of coddling. "Though children’s identities should, of course, be shielded in sex-crime allegations, women are not children. If one makes a serious criminal accusation, one must wish to be treated – and one must treat oneself – as a moral adult." In addition, laws are constantly being amended to lengthen and eliminate statutes of limitations for sex crimes (much to the chagrin of the ACLU) because women are told they need not report their victimization until they are "ready" (meanwhile, a rapist preys on other women), even if this is for decades. This policy sometimes allows convictions for decades-old alleged offenses even though the passage of time effectively forecloses the accused from mounting a meaningful or fair defense. It is, after all, usually impossible to produce evidence of an alibi for a given night 20 years ago, no matter how innocent you are. Laws were enacted that exempt rape accusers from taking polygraph tests as a condition to proceeding with the rape investigation, but men accused of rape are often still required to take polygraphs. In addition, Fed.R.Evid. 413 and similar state laws were promulgated that allow evidence that the defendant committed prior sexual assaults to show he has a propensity to commit the crime at issue (note that for no other crime is this allowed). This rule, which is unique in all of American jurisprudence and widely condemned by legal scholars, allows the jury to hear about the defendant's prior acts whether or not the defendant takes the stand, regardless of when they supposedly occurred, and even if the defendant was acquitted of them. The premise underlying the "war on rape" -- that women are children and men are rapists-in-waiting -- is absurd, but we heard few complaints about it from women's groups so long as women weren't being inconvenienced. In contrast, this blog has chronicled atrocity after atrocity to men stemming from this unjust premise. If some women are now just noticing the ill-conceived premise of the "war on rape," they should insist that the "war" be waged as if they are adults, and as if men accused of rape were presumed innocent. Posted by COTWA at 9:21 AM |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 3 2015, 05:27 AM Post #755 |
|
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2015/02/more-independence-for-college-students More independence for college students Universities should refrain from taking on an in loco parentis role by Managing Board | Feb 02 2015 | 5 hours ago Recently, Dartmouth College made headlines with its president’s new plan to ban hard alcohol on campus. This initiative has prompted discussion on the extent of schools’ regulation of students, as colleges grapple with the fine line between treating students like the adults they are and still maintaining restrictions — which are absolutely necessary — on their activities. As the dangers of binge drinking, hazing and sexual assault become more apparent, it appears colleges are opting to take on the in loco parentis role they held in the past. But restricting students’ independence rarely results in tangible benefits for schools or students. For one, restrictions are only worth their level of enforcement: as The Dartmouth Editorial Board writes, first-year students at Dartmouth are already forbidden from consuming hard alcohol, yet clearly they do so regardless. But even with strict enforcement of such policies, harsh restrictions can serve only to push student activity underground, making students even less safe. Students will find ways, no matter what, to enjoy themselves as they see fit — especially as 18-year-olds entering college gain a sense of freedom that naturally accompanies leaving home. Given the chance of punishment, students will simply opt not to seek help in situations of excessive drinking or other crises — the opposite of the intended result of Dartmouth’s policy. Excessive regulation is ineffective, but another damaging effect is its potential for stifling students’ independence, which can in turn stifle their ability to mature in general. College students undoubtedly need guidance in many spheres. But higher education is intended to be a stepping stone between childhood and adulthood — preparation for entering adult society and taking on social and financial responsibility. If students are patronized or coddled, how can they expect to be prepared for life post-graduation? Paradoxically, students may develop even worse habits than they would have given a greater amount of independence; by sweeping their activities under the rug, they may engage in behaviors that are detrimental to their physical and emotional health. Of course, any discussion of the restriction of student autonomy naturally reminds us of the National Panhellenic Conference’s recent request that sorority chapters refrain from participating in Boy’s Bid Night, though this is not a case of a university acting in loco parentis. Here at the University, we place a large emphasis on the sometimes-lofty concept of student self-governance. Despite some areas of concern, we have seen many successes due to the large amount of responsibility afforded to the student body. Precisely because our University has emphasized student autonomy, the outcry against external restrictions was immediate: a group of University women, typically empowered by the privileges our school affords them, were disrespected by a policy that dictated their actions instead of seeking pragmatic solutions to the issue at hand. College students are by no means prepared to live together without rules or authority. But colleges seem to opt for extremist policies in order to squash the problems that can stem from students’ adjustments to their newfound freedoms, and these extremist policies have not proven effective. College is intended to be a time of personal and intellectual growth, but students cannot grow if they are not given the room to do so. Low expectations breed low-quality results, and policies that too drastically regulate students imply distrust in them. When students are encouraged to hold themselves and their peers accountable within appropriate limits, they can rise to the occasion. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 4 2015, 05:49 AM Post #756 |
|
http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/campus-sexual-assault-bills-advance/article_81a48d88-ac13-11e4-86cc-b30d51ad8323.html Campus sexual assault bills advance Posted: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 9:14 pm RICHMOND — Two proposals designed to combat campus sexual assaults — one labeled “the Jesse Matthew bill” — easily passed the House higher education subcommittee Tuesday, but the more contentious issue of mandatory reporting was not on the docket. House Bill 1888, by Del. S. Chris Jones, R-Suffolk, would require academic transcripts to note if a student was suspended or dismissed because of “sexual misconduct” or withdraws while under investigation. “This is the Jesse Matthew bill,” subcommittee Chairman James P. Massie, R-Henrico, said, referring to the suspect charged in the disappearance of slain University of Virginia student Hannah Graham last fall. Matthew was “thrown out” of Liberty and Christopher Newport universities because of sexual assault allegations, Massie said. The issues before the subcommittee are “personal for me,” Massie said, noting his daughter is a recent UVa graduate. The second bill recommended by the panel was House Bill 1785, a proposal by Massie designed to require campus or local police to report to the commonwealth’s attorney an investigation of sexual assault within 48 hours. The bill stipulates that the investigation must be either initiated by the victim or rise to the level of threat to the campus community as defined by federal Clery Act provisions, which require colleges to issue a timely warning of dangers. It also would allow the victim to remain anonymous. Susan Russell, a Newport News mother of a UVa rape victim who fought for similar legislation four years ago, told the panel she believes her daughter’s case could have been successfully prosecuted if such a law were in place when she was attacked. “She was one of a handful of women with the emotional fortitude and will to file a police report so her attacker would be removed from the campus and not be a threat to anyone else,” Russell said. Her daughter was attacked in her residence hall by a student she was neither dating nor drinking with, Russell said. The student was accused of sexual assault three times before he graduated, she said. She said it was frustrating to have law enforcement “treat a felony sexual assault as an administrative matter.” Russell and her daughter made their case before the State Crime Commission in 2011, but the General Assembly declined to act then. Lawmakers have been propelled to action this session by the slayings of Graham and Virginia Tech student Morgan Harrington, whose 2009 death also has been linked to Jesse Matthew. Russell came to the House hearing on behalf of a similar bill by Del. Eileen Filler-Corn, D-Fairfax, which also was supported by Harrington’s parents. Filler-Corn’s bill was incorporated into Massie’s legislation. The bills, which apply to public and private institutions, will go to the full House Education Committee on Wednesday and then to the Courts of Justice Committee. Also Wednesday, a courts subcommittee is set to take up House Bill 1930, a mandatory-reporting proposal by Del. Rob Bell, R-Albemarle. However, Massie said Bell was still at work on his mandatory-reporting bill and not to pay attention to its current wording. Similar legislation is working its way through the Senate, including a bill making the reporting of sexual assaults to police mandatory for employees of public colleges and universities within 24 hours. The Senate legislation would allow some exemptions, such as for campus crisis counselors, and would not mandate that the victim make a police report. But such legislation has drawn objections from student advocates who fear the requirement will make victims of sexual assault even more reluctant to come forward and make it difficult for students to know where to receive help confidentially. In both the House and Senate, campus sexual-assault adjudication is being addressed through three bills, and Massie said lawmakers are taking the unusual step of having them vetted in the courts as well as education committees. “We have been working really, really hard to get it right,” he said. Massie told advocates in the crowded House hearing room also not to worry if the bills as passed Tuesday aren’t “just like you like it” because there was still time to “approve and improve these bills.” “Today is not the end. Today is really the beginning of a long process,” he said. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 5 2015, 05:24 AM Post #757 |
|
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2015/02/sullivan-up-for-contract-extension Discussion begins over extending Sullivan's contract Some support University president, others seek administrative change by Jenna Dickerson and Tiffany Truong | Feb 04 2015 | 02/04/15 12:22am nspresidentsullivanwbrumas Will Brumas | The Cavalier Daily The University has commenced an internal evaluation of University President Teresa Sullivan to determine whether to extend her current contract. Sullivan’s contract is set to expire July 31, 2016. Board of Visitors Rector George Keith Martin said that while the consideration of Sullivan’s contract is now in a formal evaluation stage, this is only part of a more general, constant reassessment of her tenure. “Consistent with good board governance, the evaluation of the University president is a continuous, ongoing process,” Martin said in an email. “We are currently in the midst of the formal evaluation period. Sullivan, who took office in 2010 as the University’s eighth president, said the work and projects she has spearheaded are part of an ongoing process, and that she would like to continue working with the University community on important University opportunities. “I look forward to continuing to work with the Board of Visitors, students, faculty, staff, parents, alumni and supporters on the many important opportunities ahead for this great institution,” Sullivan said in an email. “My goal as president has been and will continue to be working to ensure that the University of Virginia remains one of the nation’s finest institutions of higher education, and striving not only to maintain but to enhance its excellence in teaching, research, patient care and public service.” Student referendums on Sullivan’s tenure have by and large been a mixed bag. Second-year College student Jackson Nell said he believes Sullivan has done her best in response to each of the challenges the University community has faced — from devoting top University resources to the search for second-year College student Hannah Graham to supporting the student body through the Rolling Stone crisis. “I think she catalyzed a much deserved conversation about the University’s culture and the need to actively combat domestic and sexual violence,” Nell said. “I believe that her efforts to be actively present in our community through her emails and her working groups have fostered greater University attention to issues of domestic and sexual violence as well as issues regarding U.Va.’s often troubling past regarding gender, socioeconomic and racial equality.” While the University community has faced its fair share of traumatic and unsettling challenges over the last five years, Nell said he would not expect Sullivan to face any significant challenges in extending her contract. “I think she has brought a ton of energy, increased transparency and greater administration-student dialogue to Grounds throughout her time here,” he said. “I hope that she is able to continue her efforts to make U.Va. the premier public university in this nation.” Other students, however, feel Sullivan has not done an adequate job serving the University. First-year College student Aethena Brooks said she does not believe Sullivan should return to the University after her contract ends. “I think in light of recent events, the way she’s handled the things that have happened… I just don’t think she’s handled them well,” Brooks said. “I don’t feel that she’s a student advocate who supports the community.” Parker Ramsay, a fourth-year College student, said cuts to the AccessUVa program are an important legacy of Sullivan’s tenure. “[Sullivan] has done a marvelous job causing an uproar,” Ramsay said. “I think if she wants to keep her job, she needs to fight for AccessUVa. She needs to put a lot of work into that program, because that is flying so low under the radar.” Ramsay also criticized Sullivan’s administration for infringing upon student self-governance and lacking transparency. “There are certain things that get determined without student knowledge,” he said. “Transparency with the administration, why we need so much administration staff — there are a lot of things we need to work on. It’s the decisions that are being made without student knowledge that I have a problem with — especially ones that affect students so strongly.” Board of Visitors student representative Meg Gould, a fourth-year College student, said she has developed a good working relationship with Sullivan during her time on the board, and that Sullivan has been responsive to student concern. “I think that she has done her best to make sure that all voices have been included in the conversation so that she is making very deliberate and comprehensive decisions,” Gould said. “Especially seeing what she’s done with the Ad Hoc group, and more particularly the working groups. I think she has done an excellent job in making sure that she is really reaching out to everyone — and that is more broadly than students [but includes] alumni, faculty and staff as well.” Because of her status as a student representative to the Board of Visitors and her involvement in the Board’s review of Sullivan’s performance, Gould could not reveal whether she supports the renewal of Sullivan’s contract. Second-year College Student Zachary Ackerman said the way the University continues to handle the sexual assault allegations made in the Rolling Stone article will shape his opinion on the effectiveness of the administration. “Being here for two years hasn’t given me the strongest opinion either way,” Ackerman said. “I feel that as students we don’t often see what the president does until moments like [the release of the Rolling Stones article]. I think someone should look into what happened regarding the article and the claims made in them.” Martin said he hopes to conclude the evaluation process no later than June 30, 2015. — Chloe Heskett contributed reporting to this article. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 5 2015, 05:24 AM Post #758 |
|
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2015/02/what-does-teresa-sullivan-have-to-do-with-bob-mcdonnells-sentencing What does Teresa Sullivan have to do with Bob McDonnell’s sentencing? Why the University president should not have written a letter on the former governor’s behalf by Managing Board | Feb 05 2015 | 5 hours ago Last month, University President Teresa Sullivan wrote a letter on behalf of former Gov. Bob McDonnell to the judge presiding over his public corruption case. Sullivan asked for leniency, pointing to the fact that McDonnell never pressured her to help him with his highly corrupt work for Star Scientific, even during one-on-one meetings. In the letter, she emphasized she was not writing in her capacity as president of the University. There is little logic to the claim that simply because McDonnell didn’t pursue one particular avenue of corruption, he therefore deserves leniency. Moreover, the suggestion that an individual can truly be separated from his or her title — especially if that title is as prestigious as Sullivan’s — is faulty at best. Sullivan herself feels the letter was appropriate. “I wrote [the letter] in my personal capacity; I do not stop being a citizen just because I am a president,” she said in an interview with The Cavalier Daily, during which University spokesperson Anthony de Bruyn was present. “It was not written on University stationery, I didn’t use any staff time in writing it. I did it myself. If there are typos in it they are mine.” But though Sullivan says her letter was not an official statement on behalf of the University, the very first line of the letter reads: “My name is Teresa A. Sullivan. I am the President of the University of Virginia, the capacity in which I came to know Governor Robert D. McDonnell.” According to Sullivan, this was necessary in order to make her point that McDonnell deserved a lesser sentence: “I gave [the judge] the context about my position because it was relevant to the comment I was going to make about not having been contacted by the governor,” she said. But the personal capacity in which Sullivan wrote this letter — and the personal capacity in which she claims to know the governor — both derive from her professional relationship with him. Her letter only carries weight given their professional interactions and the prestige of her title as our University’s president. With the weight of her title behind her, Sullivan chose to use her position and influence to promote her own moral judgment about someone with whom she had a positive relationship. Sullivan noted that during the trial the media tended to group the University of Virginia in with McDonnell’s corruption charges, and argued that, given the number of University-related individuals subpoenaed in the case, she should have been asked about the nature of the former governor’s relationship with the University. As it stands, the jury never heard testimony of any kind or received any evidence from Sullivan. But since she was never subpoenaed, Sullivan, in writing this letter, essentially inserted evidence prior to sentencing without ever appearing in court — which is, at the very least, questionable. Perhaps the worst element of this intervention is that Sullivan intervened on the wrong side of an ethical issue. McDonnell was found guilty of 11 counts of corruption and is now the first governor in Virginia history to be charged with a crime and the first to be convicted of one. The jury in his case found unanimously that he and his wife received immense financial support — $177,000 in loans and gifts — from Jonnie R. Williams Sr. in exchange for official acts that advanced Williams’ business interests. In response to the gravity of this conviction, the U.S. probation office recommended a sentence of at least 10 years and one month for McDonnell, with federal sentencing guidelines calling for a term between six and a half years and eight years and one month. In Sullivan’s opinion, this punishment would simply be too burdensome for both McDonnell and the public. “If you think about what’s really punishment, so, a government official like this who’s convicted of a felony loses his public pension, and in this case he’s a lawyer [and] he loses his law license, and then the fact that you have been convicted even if you don’t ever serve a day is tremendously shaming to somebody who holds a high position like this,” she said. “Then to have the taxpayers pay for a long imprisonment didn’t actually to me make a great deal of sense. So that’s the reason that I encouraged leniency.” Sullivan was careful to note that she was not questioning the jury’s finding. “I’m not necessarily saying the verdict was wrong; we do have a law in this state that says you have to report gifts and public officials also have to report loans and I understand that,” she says. But, aside from the conviction of guilt, she believes personal character should have an impact on sentencing. “I think in a case like this, it depends on what the charge is. And, it seems to me corruption is a charge that does go to character.” When asked if McDonnell’s apparent choice not to implicate the University in his activities negates his corruption, Sullivan emphasized that “they’re separate matters.” But, given this line of logic, writing a letter on the governor’s behalf would be irrelevant to the case at hand. Sullivan was clear that she chose to write the letter without influence from the governor or other people, saying she hadn’t spoken with the governor since graduation last year. The choice to write the letter was entirely her own, because, she says, “I felt that it was something of a matter of justice.” Of all possible cases of injustice to speak out on, it is disappointing that Sullivan felt compelled by this one. On Jan. 6, U.S. District Judge James R. Spencer sentenced McDonnell to just two years in prison. We cannot know to what extent this decision was influenced by the more than 400 letters Spencer received in support of McDonnell. Sullivan notes that beyond writing the letter, she had no contact with the judge, nor did she attempt to. But even in a mass of 400 letters, Sullivan’s would stand out due to the prestige attached to her name. Though Sullivan counters that judges are equipped to do so, it is nearly impossible to separate Sullivan’s official self from her personal self. And though Sullivan emphasizes she was not taking a partisan stance but rather a personal one rooted in justice, McDonnell is an inherently partisan figure. It may seem unfair to refuse a high-ranking official the opportunity to make statements in an unofficial capacity — but Sullivan only had the opportunity to make such a statement precisely because of her official capacity. Were she not our president, she would not have interacted with McDonnell (according to her, “lots of times”); were she not our president, she would not have a basis for her judgments about whether McDonnell deserves leniency; and were she not our president, her letter would have no discernible impact. The irony of the incident is palpable — McDonnell used his political sway to promote something outside the bounds of his office, and Sullivan, though within her legal rights, used her influence to promote something outside the bounds of hers. We should expect and demand more from the person who represents our school. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Feb 5 2015, 07:29 AM Post #759 |
|
How were her reactions to the Jackie scandal "transparent", and not knee-jerk PC correct? What kind of dialogue happened then, or later, with the students? |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 8 2015, 08:15 AM Post #760 |
|
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/07/us/uva-campus-update/ UVA rape case: What we do and don't know By Sara Ganim and Scott Bronstein, CNN Updated 5:11 PM ET, Sat February 7, 2015 Police not ruling out that "Jackie" was raped UVA facing new report of sexual assault on campus University trying to move forward from fallout of Rolling Stone article (CNN)The University of Virginia and its campus police department are investigating a new report of a sexual assault in a campus residence as the college community struggles with how to move forward and improve its sexual assault policies after coming under national scrutiny. It's the first report of a sexual assault on campus since the controversial and widely questioned Rolling Stone article, published in October, that depicted the brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie. It's also the only reported sexual assault in the university police public reports since the start of this 2014-2015 school year, according to a CNN review of records on its website. There are few details about this newest case. A statement sent to students on Thursday said police were notified by the Dean of Students "about a sexual assault incident reported to have occurred on January 30, 2015, in a residence hall on-Grounds." The notice said police were notified on February 5, six days after the incident. Before the uproar over the Rolling Stone story, UVA policy allowed student victims to decide whether or not police were contacted after a sexual assault. Since then, the university mandated a "zero-tolerance" policy, which has yet to be defined; it's unclear if the alleged victim in the latest assault participated in reporting it to police. University officials would not comment on those questions. This all comes as the university is trying to move forward from the fallout of the Rolling Stone piece. The story of Jackie has been questioned and has prompted several investigations -- a police investigation, an internal review at UVA, and a Columbia Journalism Review of Rolling Stone's reporting process. A lot is still unknown. Here's what we do and don't know: 1. Is the Rolling Stone story about Jackie fake? What we know: Some of the details in the story are not true. Charlottesville police informed the university at the start of the spring semester that its investigation has found no evidence that the brutal gang rape happened at Phi Kappa Psi fraternity, as the Rolling Stone story alleged. However, the police have not ruled out that Jackie was raped -- possibly even gang raped, somewhere else, perhaps on a different day. The investigation is ongoing, and police aren't releasing any other details of what they've found. CNN talked to several of Jackie's friends who were with her the night she says she was allegedly attacked, and according to them, she told a different version of what happened that night. In the article, Jackie said she was gang-raped by seven men while two men looked on. Her friends said Jackie told them she was forced to give oral sex to five men. Jackie's Rolling Stone version said the perpetrator was a man she met at her job at the university pool. She told her friends it was someone she met in her chemistry class. She told her friends the assailant's name, but no one by the name she gave attended the University of Virginia, nor could anyone by that name be located in a database search across the United States. What we don't know: We don't know how much of the rest of the Rolling Stone story, including Jackie's account, was correct. Jackie has not talked to any member of the media since Rolling Stone issued an apology for its reporting, and the writer of the story has not spoken publicly since the apology, either. Columbia Journalism Review is now fact-checking all of the details at the request of Rolling Stone. 2: What about other reports of rape at UVA? What we know: Some of the details in the Rolling Stone story that deal with the broader issue of how sexual assault reports are handled at UVA have been confirmed. For example, the university has admitted that it never expelled a single student for committing sexual assault, even when the student admitted it. The law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP is now looking into how the university has historically handled sex assault claims. Even before the Rolling Stone story, UVA was the subject of a Title IX lawsuit filed by a woman who said she was drugged and raped by a fellow student, and that the university medical center lost some of the evidence, that a nurse didn't tell the truth about the woman's injuries, and that a school administrator shared confidential information. In May 2014, the Department of Education for Civil Rights announced that it was investigating 55 schools, including UVA, for possible violations related to how it handles sex abuse claims. 3: What else is being investigated? What we know: Part of the independent investigation by O'Melveny & Myers is looking at how UVA responded specifically to Jackie's astonishing accusations against members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. According to Rolling Stone, Jackie first reported her allegations to the university in the spring of 2013, months after the alleged assault happened. The university did not call police because Jackie did not want the police involved, Rolling Stone reported. However, many people on campus were well aware of Jackie's shocking allegations. Several people present at the annual "Take Back the Night" awareness event listened as Jackie took to a podium and told her story to a crowd of hundreds in 2014. The police were not called until the account was published in Rolling Stone in November, causing national scrutiny and outrage. What we don't know: It's unclear if police were aware in detail of the allegations before the Rolling Stone story was published. The fraternity Phi Kappa Psi expressed concern to police after members began to field questions from Rolling Stone about the allegation of a gang rape. It's unclear exactly why that did not turn into a full police investigation. UVA officials were also involved in that conversation, Phi Psi said. 4: What's happening with the fraternities? After being suspended for the rest of the fall semester, the fraternities were allowed to come back in the spring as long as they signed a new operating agreement which mandates sober fraternity brothers at parties, bans the serving of pre-mixed drinks, requires the use of guards at staircases, and other safety measures. This created some tension. Phi Psi was the first to sign the new agreement, but two other fraternities accused the university of "bullying" them into signing it. Then, days later, some sorority members were appalled to learn that their national chapters banned them from attending any fraternity bid night activities on Saturday, January 31, one of the biggest celebrations of the year in campus Greek life. From outside Charlottesville, the University of Virginia appears to be a campus in turmoil, struggling with how to move on from allegations that sexual assaults are rampant. But on campus many student leaders, like Student Council President Jalen Ross, agree that some of that discourse is good -- it will help them come up with the best plans for moving forward. But Ross also told CNN he's concerned with the level of involvement the national fraternity and sorority organizations have had, and cautions that they do not speak for students on campus. 5. What about the rest of the campus? It's clear from talking to students at UVA that many of them still see some merit to the criticisms of how the university handles sexual assault allegations. Many also believe that something bad may have happened to Jackie, although they are skeptical of the details in the Rolling Stone story. Most students got back from winter break and returned to normal life at school. Behind the scenes, leaders are working on new ways to tackle binge drinking and general campus safety. The university just adopted an ambassador program which provides sober escorts over the age of 21 for any student who needs help getting home. The "zero tolerance policy" pledged after the Rolling Stone story has yet to be defined, and some advocates are worried that it will have a chilling effect on reporting of sexual assault. Ross said he's been working with state legislators who have proposed mandatory reporting, to make sure that any new proposals also don't discourage women from coming forward. |
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Feb 8 2015, 11:29 PM Post #761 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
Admitted what, exactly? |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Feb 9 2015, 12:08 AM Post #762 |
|
Good point. Deliberately left vague. A male student fully admitted to UVA officials he had raped a female student -- and they did nothing? I don't think so. Good catch LTC! |
![]() |
|
| MikeKell | Feb 9 2015, 12:44 AM Post #763 |
|
Still a Newbie
|
Careful, you are mixing words. The article refers to sexual assault, which could be as simple as unwanted touching. Not all sexual assaults are rape, and they have succeeded in re-defining all kinds of things as sexual assault. If you read the details of the cases, patting someone on the butt fits the definition of sexual assault (unwanted touching) and yet it is far from rape. |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Feb 9 2015, 01:38 AM Post #764 |
|
Good point! |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 9 2015, 05:21 AM Post #765 |
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/08/will-dana-brian-williams-_n_6640008.html Rolling Stone Editor Comments On Brian Williams Mess, But Still Silent On Discredited UVA Story Posted: 02/08/2015 3:00 pm EST Updated: 02/08/2015 7:59 pm EST NEW YORK -- Rolling Stone managing editor Will Dana tweeted Saturday night that embattled NBC News anchor Brian Williams had misused the word "presently" when writing in a a staff note that he planned to temporarily leave the anchor desk amid ongoing questions about his reporting on Iraq and Hurricane Katrina. Dana's tweet about a current media screw-up was striking given that he hasn't publicly commented for two months about Rolling Stone's discredited report on an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia. Since questions arose in late November over the Rolling Stone feature story, Dana has given one interview. On Dec. 7, he told The New York Times that the magazine was "picking up the pieces" and looking to move on. But the journalistic scandal was only beginning, as several news organizations re-reported aspects of the Rolling Stone piece and several UVA students further disputed the account of Jackie, the story's subject. Dana, writer Sabrina Rubin-Erdely and others involved with the story remained silent as questions continued for several weeks. On Dec. 22, Rolling Stone founder and publisher Jann Wenner announced that Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism would conduct an independent review of article. After this reporter noted Dana's tweet about Williams on Sunday, the Rolling Stone editor responded that he is not discussing the UVA story until Columbia completes its report. Some journalists, like the Wall Street Journal's Neil King, have recently questioned when the independent review, now underway for six weeks, would be completed. Steve Coll, dean of Columbia's journalism school, said in an email Sunday to The Huffington Post that he and Dean of Academic Affairs Sheila Coronel "have made good progress on our interviews, document reviews and other research." "We are starting to draft the report and hope to complete it as soon as possible, although I can't predict exactly when," Coll said. "Rolling Stone has been fully cooperative so far." Indeed, Dana said in an email to HuffPost that he "commented extensively" to Coll's team for its report. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







9:15 AM Jul 11