IHE: Old Dominion and Accusations / U of Michigan Sexual Misconduct

[marshwiggle]

It seems there's an inordinate need to "jazz up" the allegations. For example:

Previously, Bailey was accused of rape and attempted rape, including by some of his former middle school students (all were adults by the time of the alleged crimes, which Bailey denies).

If they were adults at the time of the alleged crimes, the fact that they had been his students in middle school has no bearing, other than sounding salacious.

I disagree. Going after your former middle-school students is super-creepy and reveals a very disturbing state-of-mind.

If the story was that he had a relationship with one former student years later when she was an adult, I think Marshwiggle would be right.

The pattern is the problem. One relationship it would be fair to say "well, sometimes people who originally met under one circumstance later reconnect in a totally different one and it isn't really anyone's business if everyone is an adult." However, when it is a pattern, it seems pretty obvious that he considers current students to be people he might sleep with later. The descriptions of his behavior when these women were students of his doesn't help either.

My point is that pointing those things out before any allegations have been proven in court is just prejudicial. Similarly, in the other case (Philbert), the article said he was accused of "inappropriate sexual relationships with employees and graduate students". But in the article they linked to about the allegations, (which I quoted), only "university employees" were mentioned; there was no mention of graduate students.

This idea of trying to smear people in the court of public opinion before anything has been proven in court isn't journalism; it's propaganda. Once things have been proven in court, then those things, including patterns of behaviour, are fair game.

[smallcleanrat]

What can realistically be done to encourage victims to come forward?

Maybe, for a start, promote education that reduces the incredulity that someone who was assaulted may not come forward right away. But I don't really know how much impact this has anyway. I just get very tired of hearing "well, if they were really raped..." followed by an expression of pure ignorance.

A frequent (and legitimate complaint) is that people accused of perpetrating assault are often pilloried in the court of public opinion regardless of whether an investigation has even started let alone come to any conclusion.

This also happens to victims because many people have narrow, preconceived expectations of how a "real" assault victim would behave, and a nauseating amount of confidence in their own ability to spot liars and false accusers.

This is the problem on both sides, and why we have to rely on evidence. Anyone who is convinced they "can tell" who's telling the truth regardless of evidence is a dangerous ideologue of one sort or another.

Didn't I say that?

[Ruralguy]

I think he was trying to agree with you, at least partly.

[marshwiggle]

I think he was trying to agree with you, at least partly.

Yes, that was it. Whether it's a parent saying "I know my son" or a campus counsellor saying "I know victims of assault", it's not evidence of a person's veracity. (And in so many cases, if both people were drinking heavily, then even their own memories aren't necessarily reliable regarding what actually took place. So even if both people are trying to be absolutely truthful their testimony may not provide a lot of insight.)