Where's the defense of (statutory) rape?
This is saying “well maybe the professor does hold power over that students academic career via their grades and other opportunities but I don’t think that should really be against the law”.
So, it is defending statutory rape. But that’s just not universally believed to be a bad thing so having the word “rape” in the term “statutory rape” feels like an accurate label to people who don’t believe this is wrong.
It’s like if some people don’t feel having sex with siblings/cousins was wrong, and the rest of the world called it “familial rape”. They’d say “I’m not defending familial rape, I’m just saying sometimes it’s fine for an older brother to have sex with a younger sister as long as it’s consensual”.
The thing about “statutory rape” is that there’s a blanket assumption that consent can’t be given properly when there is a major imbalance of power, such as that between boss and subordinate (which still happens all the time in FAANG) or between a professor and a student (which still happens all the time in academia).
It’s still “statutory rape” by many strict definitions of the term, it’s just not universally believed to be wrong or in need of strong enforcement.
This half of the sentence is describing statutory rape
>… and it might be completely fine and consensual.
This half of the sentence is defending it. Do you disagree with either of those parsings. If you do can you please explain how you interpret each of those sections?
SJW is a pejorative, and by associating statutory rape with it, he is belittling and dismissing the validity of the term, which is in turn defending it.
Words matter.