NBC News: Banned from Christian College For Being Raped

[Wahoo Redux]

She told her Christian college she was raped. Then she was banned from campus.

A new federal complaint says Visible Music College gave a student a choice: admit to breaking the school's ban on premarital sex or be expelled.

When Mara Louk told an administrator at Visible Music College, where she was a senior, that a male classmate had choked and raped her last November, she expected that school officials would help her file a police report and arrange a safety plan.

Instead, she said in a federal complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Education on Wednesday, administrators at Visible, a Christian college in Memphis, Tennessee, accused her of breaking school rules against premarital sex with a different student, an ex-boyfriend. She denied having sex with him but said the school threatened to expel her unless she signed a confession and finished the school year remotely.

Visible Music College administrators also told her they would not remove the accused student from her classes because police didn't arrest him, nor would they conduct a Title IX investigation, because the alleged assault happened off campus. And administrators attempted to bar Louk from telling anyone else at the school that she had been raped, she said.

[Golazo]

Because of the Trump era changes to Title IX, the university may be correct that it was not required to investigate what happened off campus but the fact that the students were in the same class makes refusals to make accommodations suspect.

Threatening to expel the student after she raised the accusations looks very much like retaliation based on what is presented here, and there is no carve out or religious exception for that. I wonder if the fallout from this might cause a school of 120 students to close.

[Wahoo Redux]

I am agnostic about guilt here.

But I do notice the double edged sword of relying on police investigation----on the one hand, all students have rights and we should have at least some evidence that the accused committed an assault; on the other hand, this leaves the alleged victim vulnerable and traumatized in the hermetic world of the college campus.  It is a conundrum. 

[marshwiggle]

I am agnostic about guilt here.

But I do notice the double edged sword of relying on police investigation----on the one hand, all students have rights and we should have at least some evidence that the accused committed an assault; on the other hand, this leaves the alleged victim vulnerable and traumatized in the hermetic world of the college campus.  It is a conundrum.

Part of the "conundrum" is that the "double edged sword of relying on police investigation" means that what you actually have is an "alleged victim allegedly vulnerable and allegedly traumatized in the hermetic world of the college campus."

The point of "innocent until proven guilty" is that taking any action on the assumption of someone's guilt is undesirable.

Of course, the college's expulsion of her based on their accusation (without evidence) is hypocritical and also a violation of that principle.

(Just to be clear: It sounds like this woman was badly treated by the college. They seem to be more concerned with covering their own reputation than investigating a serious complaint. But justice shouldn't be determined on whether someone "feels" like a crime has been committed.)
 

[Puget]

This is clearly retaliation against and egregious treatment of the student. The Justice Dept. should come down hard on them and the student should sue.

[mamselle]

This is clearly retaliation against and egregious treatment of the student. The Justice Dept. should come down hard on them and the student should sue.

Agreed.

Sad to say, there may also be an undercurrent which appears in some very religiously as well as politically conservative mindsets, in which she is now 'impure' and likely to 'pollute' the campus, and/or being no longer a virgin, is likely to discuss the experience* with other young women, 'polluting' their minds and hearts as well.

And for the college possessed of such a mindset, it then becomes a student-management issue....which may be the real underlying reason behind or beneath her being banned.

M.

*This may seem inexplicable given the circumstances--it truly, nearly is--but however terrible it was, there will be some hubris-driven males who will always see heterosexual activity as an unmitigated, strongly positive experience for the female....one that she will portray as desirable to her friends, and that will somehow cause a seductive atmosphere on the campus as a result--because of course, all females "want it" and it's really the female who, "coming on to" the male, causes the interaction, as well....

[apl68]

The best that can be said for the school is that such a tiny place is probably woefully under-equipped to deal with a nightmare situation like a rape accusation by one student against another.  It's not too surprising that they might bungle their handling of the matter.  That still doesn't excuse the treatment of the victim here.  It might be due to some of the reasons that mamselle suggested, or it might be simply a version of the "this accuser has created a problem and an embarrassment for us, so we will find an excuse to get rid of her" mentality that is so common in secular institutions as well.  She is quoted at the end of the article as saying that a professedly Christian institution ought to care about doing better than that, and she's absolutely right.

[mamselle]

^ Yes, the parents of all the other young women could just respond to the idea that the campus is unsafe and bring their daughters home, as well.

M.

[apl68]

^ Yes, the parents of all the other young women could just respond to the idea that the campus is unsafe and bring their daughters home, as well.

M.

I'd start wondering that if I had a daughter there.

[artalot]

Golazo is correct - Trump era Title IX changes mean that unis no longer have to investigate sexual assaults off campus. That doesn't meant that they can't help students who report assault - they could have provided or directed her to survivor advocacy and mental health services. My understanding is that they would also have been within their rights to separate the students into separate classes, especially if she reported feeling an ongoing  threat.
But it is still a Title IX violation to retaliate against those who report sexual assault. I'm not Christian, but I wouldn't want my sons or my daughters going there - sexual assault hurts everyone as does a culture that tolerates it.