Hacker News Reader

Comment by RcouF1uZ4gsC | Hacker News Reader

Part 1 of this series https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-un...

starts off with a story that sounds like a modern retelling of To Kill A Mockingbird: A white woman has consensual sex with a black man. Later she becomes worried about what other people will think and accuses the black man of rape. He then undergoes a sham trial and is found guilty and punished. The big difference is that in To Kill A Mockingbird, they at least pretended to have due process giving the accused a lawyer and allowing him to confront his accuser. The modern version doesn't even have a pretence of due process.

View on HN

That is frightening. Very frightening. I mean, she did what she did. But later, disclaimed responsibility. Arguably because she was stoned. And the guy, who was also stoned, was arguably supposed to excuse himself from the situation, because she was too stoned to consent.

But of course, he was also too stoned to consent, so arguably she raped him just as much as he raped her.

That will never happen, of course. Women do get prosecuted for sex with underage men. But never, as far as I know, for having sex with someone incapable of consenting.

This is crazy shit. I mean, under these circumstances, what sane man at university would ever have sex with a woman? It's like playing Russian Roulette. Or speeding excessively on the interstate. Sure, most of the time, there's never an issue. But when there is, it's a dramaticly bad issue. Often life destroying.

Edit: It's been decades since I had any personal experience with university age people. There are children and grandchildren of friends, for sure, but I don't talk substantively with them. All I know is what I read in mass media. So it occurs to me that it's just that some rare events get hyped. And that dating for most university students remains uneventful. Anyone have some insight or references?

I thought your description must surely be hyperbole. So I read the article and found that you described it exactly as it was. I'm speechless.

> The modern version doesn't even have a pretence of due process.

Seems largely due to this needing to be handled in a criminal matter where there are laws, and not vague/varying campus rules and bureaucratic processes

Maybe this is only a nitpick, but To Kill A Morkingbird had nothing to do with consensual sex. IIRC the accuser in that story really had been raped, but the rapist was not the accused.

You've been downvoted because you're wrong. But it seems like an excellent opportunity to rewatch/re-read the book (or watch/read it for the first time).

Not exactly: Mayella Ewell and Tom Robinson did not, in fact, have sex. Tom rebuffed Mayella's advances, and Bob Ewell concocted a rape as retribution for Mayella's attraction to a black man. However, the book strongly implies that, at some earlier point, Bob Ewell himself had actually raped Mayella -- perhaps habitually. It's not lingered upon, but the implication, while brief, is difficult to oppose.

I see what you mean now, but on initially reading your comment I was under the impression that the man involved was convicted of a criminal offense. Just to clarify for anyone else reading, this didn't happen.

He's only expelled from the school and publicly "known" as a rapist, no big deal. But you're right, it's not criminal liability, which is why back when this was still a new thing advocates wanted it to be more than "just" expulsion - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/scarlet-let...

Which brings us back to - why are colleges making determinations about rape? Like Professor Johnson says from that article:

“If the student is guilty, that’s not anywhere near sufficient punishment,” Johnson said. “But if the student is innocent, this is a life-altering thing. If they’re going to put it on a student’s permanent record, they need to do a lot more than they do now to be sure they get it right.”

The actual criminal justice system is already horrifyingly cruel on sex offenders, even after they've served their time, and after they've registered on the "informative, not punitive" sex offender registries. Scott Greenfield covers the trampling of civil liberties under the guise of "protecting the children" here - https://blog.simplejustice.us/?s=sex+offender. The punishments range from where to live, to whether you're allowed to use the Internet, and those are the legal ones - how well do you think a sex offender reintegrates into society when no one wants to employ them or associate with them?

I don't see any reasons to doubt that, if left unchecked, the college system won't devolve into such a cruel and horrifying state. It's only natural - rapists are almost universally hated, so it's no big deal if we trample on their civil liberties a bit(or a lot).

I didn't say it wasn't a big deal. You're reading way too much into my post. I was just pointing out that the term "sham trial" was used in a potentially misleading way to refer to something that was not a trial within the criminal justice system.

He said this student didn't even get a sham trial. Why would you even comment on your own reading miscomprehension?

He said that there was no pretence at due process. That could just as easily mean a trial without due process (i.e. another sham trial).

No he just had his life ruined instead.

We have spent centuries learning why due process is critical and somehow we throw it all out because someone in government sends a "Dear Collegue" letter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com