Ms. Annie Roberston - Rape and Race

We've long heard the startling statistics regarding rape in the United States. According to Crisis Connection the statistics are even more startling when you focus on college campus' in the United States. Here are a few of those statistics:

• Every 21 hours there is a rape on an American college campus
• 1 in 4 women in college today has been the victim of rape, and nearly 90% of them
  knew their rapist  
• Of the college woman who are raped, only 25% describe it as rape
• Of the college women who are raped, only 10% report the rape
• 34% of completed rapes and 45% of attempted rapes take place on campus
• Almost 60% of the completed campus rapes that take place on campus occur in the victim's residence
• 31% occur in another residence
• 10% occur in a fraternity

It gets worse when you take a closer look at the recent high profile cases, (Steubenville/Genarlow Wilson) which involved victims below the collegiate level.

I am a young woman, so I don't need these stats to tell me that there is a problem. I can also understand the indescribable pain that victims of rape feel, as well as the devastation that occurs for victims who speak out against their perpetrators, only to feel silenced. I get it! So the controversy at Sarah Lawrence College involving Annie Robertson and Garvey-Malik Ashhurst-Watson are of no surprise to me.

Annie in her own words:

To make matter worse for Ms. Robertson, Mr. Ashhurst-Watson was initially charged with two counts of sexual misconduct and those charges were later dismissed. The Westchester County District Attorney’s Office launched an investigation and concluded that there were inconsistencies in the accounts of the events between the two parties and not enough evidence to prosecute Mr. Ashhurst-Watson.



"How can you tell a woman she is safe when her body no longer belongs to her? When you are finally able to burn me at the stake, frame my ashes for your school’s distinction. Until then, I will be tying nooses with the strong cords of my voice. I will be hanging your boys up and invoking my no until the spirit takes them and their legs stop twitching." - Annie Robertson

It's unfortunate that Ms. Robertson decided to unnecessarily invoke race with well known and documented elements of slavery. For this I can't take her seriously. I can't see how, through what I imagine to be the most devastating and hurtful of circumstances, Ms. Robertson can only see the race of her "perpetrator". Ms. Robertson was a victim of a crime, a victim of violence. So why would she choose to focus on the fact that her "perpetrator" was black?

This poem is indicative of Ms. Robertson's mindset and her character. Words are powerful. Ms. Robertson knows this. So to now pretend that the racial elements were unintentional is just not cool.

If Ms. Robertson really wanted to make sure that her "attack" didn't happen in vain, she would have set out to truly make a difference. Look at the statistics (especially the ones above) and make the decision to begin a meaningful national conversation on rape and sexual violence on college campus'. Ms. Robertson could have started a movement in her back yard, by galvanizing everyone at Sarah Lawrence with a mission to make campus rape a thing of the past. No, instead she made a decision to put a "poem" on her Facebook page about lynching black men.  This poor decision not only weakens her argument, but it weakens a movement that already exists to help young women recognize when they are victims of violence, and take action against their perpetrators. Coming forward and accusing someone of rape it already a very difficult act. Victims fear persecution, so many remain quiet. Ms. Robertson has made it even worse, especially for anyone who may be a victim of rape or any other form of violence, at Sarah Lawrence.

I really wish Annie Roberston hadn't taken the direction of this conversation to such a disgusting level.

Sound off...

1 - When you read Annie Robertson's "poem" what did you think?
2 - Has Ms. Robertson weakened her argument?
3 - When the charges were dismissed against Mr. Ashhurst-Watson, what should Ms. Robertson have done? What should any victim in Ms. Robertson's position do?
4 - Is this situation a lesson for young men on college campus' across the US?

San Diego Mayor Bob Filner: Bad Behavior

Perhaps you've heard about San Diego Democratic Mayor Bob Filner, who by all accounts makes people like Herman Cain, Elliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner, Mark Sanford, Clarence Thomas and Bob Packwood look like gentlemen greatly concerned with women's dignity. He is currently being sued for sexual harassment by his former communications secretary. And I wouldn't be surprised if other lawsuits are upcoming. The man appears to have been a sleazebag. Filner's behavior towards women allegedly ran the gamut from simple pickup attempts or investigations of interest through unambiguous textbook sexual harassment to what could conceivably be called attempted sexual assault. Or as one woman ruefully told me it could just be another day at the office. There is a joke by Chris Rock in which he claims that "Sexual harassment is when an ugly man tries to get some". I can't really call it but Filner doesn't quite appear to be an Adonis. 

Some of the claims against Filner would seem to suggest that the man had been watching too many Benny Hill skits. I'm a HUGE Benny Hill fan but somehow I manage not to use a comedian's fictitious behavior as a guide book for interacting with women in the workplace. In the first place that would be wrong and in the second place I really really really need my job. I'm not getting fired for doing some dumb stuff like Filner allegedly did. I mean how do you explain that to friends and family. It's one thing to get fired because you stood up against some racist stuff going down or because you blew the whistle on some shady finances or illegal dumping. I would be proud of that. It's something else again to get fired because you grabbed somebody's butt. How do you explain THAT on a resume? All kidding aside, other claims indicate that Filner had been crossing some very clear redlines around sexual harassment or worse. Since men are traditionally the initiators, unless a man takes a chance and makes his intentions clear, things might not happen. The challenge is that different women have different ideas about which men they consider attractive, when and where it's appropriate to field offers of interest, and of course how direct or bold such offers should be. A woman may think that one man's crude approach is refreshingly direct, masculine and flattering and think that the exact same approach from a different man is creepy, degrading and actionable harassment. It all depends. You just don't know until you try. David Letterman evidently knew how to be smooth. Filner did not. 

However in today's legal and cultural environment it's usually, especially for men, a good idea to avoid making the workplace your happy hunting grounds. I've seen it work for some people but I've also seen others make a big mess. And more importantly than that it's CRITICAL not to hit on people that work for you. That's virtually the definition of sexual harassment. It's a big freaking no-no. Trying to make sex some sort of quid pro quo arrangement is also wrong. Filner doesn't seem to realize that. And obviously putting your hands on people is also just not done. Does it rise to assault? I don't know. The lawyers can answer that. But there are just some basic obvious things that anyone should know. Unless you have some sort of explicit invitation keep your hands to yourself. It is known. How difficult is this? If the women Filner harassed had punched or slapped him or their husbands, boyfriends or other male relatives had gone looking for him with bad intentions, I would think he got what he deserved. But aside from the obvious assault-like nature of some of the allegations, to give the devil his due, other allegations are simply a man trying (ineptly and crudely) to make a move. Headlocks and forceful kisses or grabbing someone's behind = unethical, immoral and illegal. Asking someone who doesn't work for you if she has a man or telling her that you think she's attractive and asking her out to dinner = normal life.

Her job was to escort Filner from table to table during the dinner. At one point, Fink said, an attendee singled her out for praise saying, "this girl has worked her a$$ off for you." At that, Fink said, Filner told her to turn around.
"As a staffer, I know it sounds silly to say that you just do it, but you just do it," Fink said. Once she'd turned, Fink said, Filner "took his hands, patted my posterior, laughed, and said: 'No, it's still there!'" For a moment, Fink said, she was in shock, "and it certainly gave the people at the table pause."

Read this account of thirteen different women retelling their experiences with Filner. Let everyone know what you think.

Was all of this sexual harassment?
Should Filner have been arrested/voted out of office a loooooong time ago?
Should Filner be recalled?
If you worked with someone like Filner (as a peer, subordinate, or boss) how would you handle him?

You Deserve Rape: Free Speech or Harassment?

How far do you think the First Amendment protections on free speech should stretch? In a famous Supreme Court case which then restricted the ability of anti-war citizens to distribute anti-war literature, the Court said that a person could not falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. I think the example was a good one although the actual case opinion was in my view horribly incorrect.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." LINK

This standard was fortunately later modified in the 1969 Brandenburg decision which allowed that free speech could not be restricted unless, among other reasons, it incited or was likely to incite imminent lawless action. I'm guessing this would for example include such things as standing up in a courtroom where your loved one was about to be sentenced and yelling out to your numerous friends and family "Let's burn this muyerfuyer down and kill that judge!!". That's probably going to get you removed from the courtroom and arrested. There are some other instances in which free speech protections do not apply: threats, lies, copyright infringement, parental rights over children, and a few other circumstances which don't much interest me for purposes of this post. Of course my blog partners Old Guru and The Janitor can easily give chapter and verse on exactly where free speech is and is not limited legally. It's what they do. But I'm not only interested on where the legal line currently is but rather where do you think it should be?

In Arizona there may be another test case, not necessarily legally, but culturally and politically of where we think free speech ends and harassment begins. At the University of Arizona a student protested Take Back the Night rallies and designation of April as sexual assault awareness month by holding a sign that read "You deserve rape".

A student holding a sign that read “You deserve rape” ignited outrage across campus Tuesday, on the same day of a sexual assault awareness event, but administrators declined requests to remove him or his sign. 

Dean Saxton — also known as Brother Dean Samuel — regularly preaches on the UA Mall in front of Heritage Hill and the Administration building. On Tuesday, his sermon drew the attention of onlookers, several of whom either personally confronted him or complained to the Dean of Students Office. 

The Dean of Students Office received stacks of written complaints, emails and multiple phone calls regarding Saxton’s sermon about women, said Kendal Washington White, interim dean of students. Saxton has never directly threatened anyone in particular, and his language has been general enough that he isn’t targeting a particular person, White said. However, a university attorney was contacted to discuss the situation. “We find it to be vulgar and vile,” White said. “However, it is protected speech. He has yet to, at this point, violate the student code of conduct.”

Saxton, a junior studying classics and religious studies, said his sermon was meant to convey that “if you dress like a whore, act like a whore, you’re probably going to get raped.”  “I think that girls that dress and act like it,” Saxton said, “they should realize that they do have partial responsibility, because I believe that they’re pretty much asking for it.”

LINK

I think this is a classic case of "I disapprove or what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  I tend to think that the best remedy for bad speech is good speech...in the public sphere. That last is important. I don't hold that there is any free speech right to come to a blog and insult people, visit someone's home and curse out the owner or even for the government to insist that a private organization accept an individual member who has previously stated his or her fervent opposition to the group's goals. And often once a parent tells a child that "this conversation is over", well that's the end of that. Usually in my household that particular phrase was a warning signal that this was my final chance to sit down and be quiet before more convincing methods were used. Obviously in a private workplace, someone carrying that same sign Saxton is carrying likely would be fired immediately, forcibly escorted from the premises and possibly sued. So those are all exceptions to "free speech" with which I'm fine.

But in the public sphere where the government is able, willing and eager to use coercive methods that are simply not available to blog moderators, company managers or strict parents, I think we need to be very careful about suggesting that some ideas can't be expressed or worse yet, must be punished after the fact if anyone dares to express them.

The country is full of people who have repugnant ideas. Whether we like it or not, they have the right to express them. Although I might well enjoy forcing certain people to shut up  , whatever political coalition gives me the power to take that action and play censor may be fleeting. So in the not too distant future I might be forced to give up my free speech rights by "bad guys" who find my ideas repugnant. That's not acceptable. Even folks who are in the same general political spectrum as I am can often have surprisingly and to my way of thinking, ridiculously different ideas about topics. They may think that banning this or that idea is a small price to pay for harmony. So it goes.

Saxton's speech may well be hateful and may make people uncomfortable. But that's exactly the sort of speech the First Amendment was designed to protect. Unless Saxton makes a particularized threat to someone or otherwise disrupts class I don't see where the university has or should have the power to prevent him from expressing his opinion. One man's free speech is another woman's hostile environment. In the public sphere I think protecting the right to free speech is more valuable than supposed completing claims like freedom from hate speech or hostile environments. Anything stating someone deserves sexual assault is wrong, obviously. But saying "You deserve rape" in a general sense is different from saying you're going to rape a particular person. One is free speech, albeit ugly, while the other is an actionable threat which should see someone locked up. Of course Saxton's message is not directed at my gender. So maybe I can afford to be rather blase about it. Though in truth I'd feel the same way if he started carrying around a sign endorsing theories of racial inferiority. What if the message is directed at you? What if you are a woman who is wearing a skirt that is too short, heels that are too high or a top that's too tight or too revealing for Saxton's preference. Does your opinion change? Does Saxton deserve a punch in the mouth?

Questions

1) Is this free speech?

2) Should the student code of conduct change to make things like this actionable?

3) Should public schools or universities have exemptions from First Amendment protections in order to provide safe environments?

4) Should hate speech lack First Amendment protection?

5) Should Saxton be expelled?