[Grange]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/...g-rape-law

Sure, law students are there to learn law--but not if it steps on their feelings!

Quote:

Imagine a medical student who is training to be a surgeon but who fears that he’ll become distressed if he sees or handles blood. What should his instructors do? Criminal-law teachers face a similar question with law students who are afraid to study rape law.

...

But my experience at Harvard over the past couple of years tells me that the environment for teaching rape law and other subjects involving gender and violence is changing. Students seem more anxious about classroom discussion, and about approaching the law of sexual violence in particular, than they have ever been in my eight years as a law professor. Student organizations representing women’s interests now routinely advise students that they should not feel pressured to attend or participate in class sessions that focus on the law of sexual violence, and which might therefore be traumatic. These organizations also ask criminal-law teachers to warn their classes that the rape-law unit might “trigger” traumatic memories. Individual students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.

How can a law firm take these students seriously down the road?

[turkishcandy]

I remember Harvard professors had an honorable approach to the rape issue. They had published an article that criticized the burden of proof shifting when it came to rape accusations. But there is only so much you can do as a professors if your students are a bunch of pussies getting offended by the word 'violate'. You can't tell them to go fuck themselves. Or can you? I guess we will see soon.

[DrewP]

I suspect that the type of people described in your post, along with those who were "too traumatized" by the Michael Brown/Eric Garner verdicts to take their exams, are a very tiny but vocal minority. As far as I can tell, nobody I've ever met in real life is nearly that pathetic or oversensitive. You only hear about people like this on the Internet. Same goes for the non-binary genderqueer sapio-demisexual hairy armpitted weirdos that populate OKCupid... when you actually go hang out with real life people, you realize that the gender binary is still a given to almost everyone and the OKC freaks are just mentally deranged outcasts.

[JackDavey]

(12-15-2014 08:53 PM)DrewP Wrote:  

I suspect that the type of people described in your post, along with those who were "too traumatized" by the Michael Brown/Eric Garner verdicts to take their exams, are a very tiny but vocal minority. As far as I can tell, nobody I've ever met in real life is nearly that pathetic or oversensitive. You only hear about people like this on the Internet. Same goes for the non-binary genderqueer sapio-demisexual hairy armpitted weirdos that populate OKCupid... when you actually go hang out with real life people, you realize that the gender binary is still a given to almost everyone and the OKC freaks are just mentally deranged outcasts.

And yet, somehow, that tiny, vocal minority seem to manage to effect policy changes with some regularity.

[Grange]

Nobody in the real world of hard hitting legal practice is that soft, that's for damn sure. I can picture law firms that hire Harvard Law grads thinking to themselves to avoid women (and you know it was women behind this, not men). A. they didn't learn all the material they were supposed to. B. they think their feelings trump the world around them. C. will act on B. Even if it's just a small minority, is it worth the risk?

[Que enspastic]

At Melbourne Law School there was a similar sensitivity. Assuming there's a reasonable chance someone may have been molested or raped among the student population, how would you expect the teaching staff to proceed ?

[RawGod]

(12-15-2014 10:33 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  

At Melbourne Law School there was a similar sensitivity. Assuming there's a reasonable chance someone may have been molested or raped among the student population, how would you expect the teaching staff to proceed ?

Some of the students' friends may have been assaulted or murdered also. Should academic staff tiptoe around teaching the principles of homicide law?

End rape exceptionalism.

[alexdagr81]

I don't think these people are traumatized, probably trying to be manipulative because they don't know what happens when you don't have complete control.

[Grange]

(12-15-2014 10:41 PM)RawGod Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 10:33 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  

At Melbourne Law School there was a similar sensitivity. Assuming there's a reasonable chance someone may have been molested or raped among the student population, how would you expect the teaching staff to proceed ?

Some of the students' friends may have been assaulted or murdered also. Should academic staff tiptoe around teaching the principles of homicide law?

End rape exceptionalism.

Right. The piece mentioned a student who didn't want the professor to use the word "violate." That's fucking ridiculous. If being raped took away your ability to function when you overhear the discussions that are part of law school sue for damages or something but the rest of the profession needs to hear it.

Fortunately, being raped doesn't take away your ability to function when you hear the word "violate." The best thing to do is face your fears and remove the power of the word over you. Especially if your future job involves the frequent use of the word. Will you tell the whole legal system to use a different word?

And as we've mentioned in many threads around here lately, the actual incidence of rape is very low, especially for college women, so most of the time it's probably a P&D regret scenario that shouldn't be allowed to hold the rest of the class hostage.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(12-15-2014 10:33 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  

At Melbourne Law School there was a similar sensitivity. Assuming there's a reasonable chance someone may have been molested or raped among the student population, how would you expect the teaching staff to proceed ?

Shouldn't a girl that was raped have even more zest for learning about laws concerning sexual crimes, so that she can help victims get justice? Similar to how the stereotypical story about an ER surgeon or paramedic involves them seeing a relative die in a terrible car crash?

[placer]

Something that stuck out to me. These you-must-have-trigger-warnings feminists don't like a particular documentary. From the article:

Jeannie Suk in the New Yorker Wrote:

Something similar to the “second rape” concept now appears to be influencing the way we think about the classroom. I first encountered this more than a year ago, when I showed “Capturing the Friedmans,” an acclaimed documentary about a criminal-sex-abuse investigation, to my law students. Some students complained that I should have given them a “trigger warning” beforehand; others suggested that I shouldn’t have shown the film at all.

Now, something very interesting: That movie, as I mentioned two weeks ago, is about a witch hunt (the 1980s child sexual abuse at daycare centers hysteria). It does not surprise me that the kinds of "feminists" who are part of the current "rape culture" witch hunt do not want to see a documentary about how a witch hunt damages constitutional principles such as presumption of innocence and due process.

It scares me that these kinds of "feminists" -- perhaps "witch hunter" is a better description -- will probably become prosecutors and judges.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

This brings to mind a completely different but totally relevant topic that should be discussed more. How many women are only in these law classes for show, ego, and prestige, and don't really intend to practice law?

From the looks of that story, it seems like that's the case. College is becoming a "finishing school" for upper class women, who get degrees but don't use them. They get married or go into marketing, but are able to say they have that prestigious "law degree."

Law degrees are the new BMWs because education is now an empty status symbol for women.

How do I know? Because I saw the beginnings of this with my Gen X crowd. Parents would push daughters into college -- the same kind of girls who would have been married off a generation before. These girls would take up seats that could have been used by men who would have actually done something with the degree. Almost all the women I went to college with aren't using their degrees.

I can't help but share the worst offender. She was a biology major but when she got out of college decided to work in the restaurant industry temporarily. That became semi-permanent when she had a kid. She then moved into PR for a college. Last I heard she was really into nutrition and working at....Whole Foods.

Keep in mind she had a four-year degree in biology from a top-ranked state school, not a community college. How many men would have benefited from that degree? Guess it looks good on her wall, though. Which is the point with these so-called "law students" who are too squeamish for law.

[Que enspastic]

MLS still taught it, but when you study criminal law it quickly becomes apparent that the defence best protects their client by suggesting to the jury that the alleged victim is a lying slut. There are checks and balances built into the system to try to mitigate this but it is essentially a zero-sum legal battle where you win by damaging the opponent's credibility.

In rape cases there will be men who are let off the hook because either the woman doesn't report to the police (most women) or the evidence isn't strong enough to find the man guilty. Of course the reverse can happen but as the prosecution has the evidential burden they will many times fail to satisfy a high threshold even if the jury thinks on the balance of probabilities the victim was indeed raped.

The reason for treating sexual cases more sensitively than say assault or murder cases is because the victim will v commonly be portrayed by the defence as having 'asked for it' whereas in murder or aggravated assault you are more concerned with the mens rea or mental intent of the perpetrator than the actions of the victim. You are more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted by a family member or close partner than a random person or looser affiliate which can really fuck up a victim on a deep psychological level.

[Grange]

(12-16-2014 10:44 AM)Que enspastic Wrote:  

MLS still taught it, but when you study criminal law it quickly becomes apparent that the defence best protects their client by suggesting to the jury that the alleged victim is a lying slut. There are checks and balances built into the system to try to mitigate this but it is essentially a zero-sum legal battle where you win by damaging the opponent's credibility.

In rape cases there will be men who are let off the hook because either the woman doesn't report to the police (most women) or the evidence isn't strong enough to find the man guilty. Of course the reverse can happen but as the prosecution has the evidential burden they will many times fail to satisfy a high threshold even if the jury thinks on the balance of probabilities the victim was indeed raped.

The reason for treating sexual cases more sensitively than say assault or murder cases is because the victim will v commonly be portrayed by the defence as having 'asked for it' whereas in murder or aggravated assault you are more concerned with the mens rea or mental intent of the perpetrator than the actions of the victim. You are more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted by a family member or close partner than a random person or looser affiliate which can really fuck up a victim on a deep psychological level.

None of that is an argument for leaving rape/sexual assault law out of the law school curriculum. Even if you don't believe it would you construct the best (concise) argument in favor of doing so?

[Phoenix]

Just retaliate in kind - emphasize it.

"OK students, I hear that some people are uncomfortable talking about rape law specifically, for some reason. So for their benefit, I'm just letting you all know that I will fail anyone who doesn't correctly answer at least 50% of the rape law questions".

[Grange]

Overkill much? I'm saying the opposite: they should continue to teach exactly what they need to teach to get their students adequately prepared for law careers unless there's a compelling reason to treat rape differently than all other subjects. QE might give one, but so far I am unconvinced.

[Que enspastic]

(12-16-2014 11:43 AM)Grange Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:44 AM)Que enspastic Wrote:  

MLS still taught it, but when you study criminal law it quickly becomes apparent that the defence best protects their client by suggesting to the jury that the alleged victim is a lying slut. There are checks and balances built into the system to try to mitigate this but it is essentially a zero-sum legal battle where you win by damaging the opponent's credibility.

In rape cases there will be men who are let off the hook because either the woman doesn't report to the police (most women) or the evidence isn't strong enough to find the man guilty. Of course the reverse can happen but as the prosecution has the evidential burden they will many times fail to satisfy a high threshold even if the jury thinks on the balance of probabilities the victim was indeed raped.

The reason for treating sexual cases more sensitively than say assault or murder cases is because the victim will v commonly be portrayed by the defence as having 'asked for it' whereas in murder or aggravated assault you are more concerned with the mens rea or mental intent of the perpetrator than the actions of the victim. You are more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted by a family member or close partner than a random person or looser affiliate which can really fuck up a victim on a deep psychological level.

None of that is an argument for leaving rape/sexual assault law out of the law school curriculum. Even if you don't believe it would you construct the best (concise) argument in favor of doing so?

Classes on sexual assault and rape are already included in law school curriculum. Of course it should still be taught - it is a big component in the Criminal Law course.

Having said that, the professor should be mindful that it can be a sensitive subject. At the start of the first class on sexual assault he or she should flag that if anyone feels deeply uncomfortable in this class due to a past traumatic event they can contact someone qualified to handle such issues and work out an appropriate way to deal with it. This precursor on the subject already happens now at most law schools. I'm sure most sexual assault victims would be interested in sitting the course but say in the extreme case someone just can't handle it they should be able to sit out this section and make up the lost credit some other way.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(12-15-2014 11:39 PM)Grange Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 10:41 PM)RawGod Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 10:33 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  

At Melbourne Law School there was a similar sensitivity. Assuming there's a reasonable chance someone may have been molested or raped among the student population, how would you expect the teaching staff to proceed ?

Some of the students' friends may have been assaulted or murdered also. Should academic staff tiptoe around teaching the principles of homicide law?

End rape exceptionalism.

Right. The piece mentioned a student who didn't want the professor to use the word "violate." That's fucking ridiculous. If being raped took away your ability to function when you overhear the discussions that are part of law school sue for damages or something but the rest of the profession needs to hear it.

Fortunately, being raped doesn't take away your ability to function when you hear the word "violate." The best thing to do is face your fears and remove the power of the word over you. Especially if your future job involves the frequent use of the word. Will you tell the whole legal system to use a different word?

And as we've mentioned in many threads around here lately, the actual incidence of rape is very low, especially for college women, so most of the time it's probably a P&D regret scenario that shouldn't be allowed to hold the rest of the class hostage.

"The piece mentioned a student who didn't want the professor to use the word "violate.""

The writer was not being honest. She should have said "female student." In fact, every mention in this piece should have said "female student(s)."

Whenever you get a culture with a majority female population -- as college is now -- you get a culture where banning and silencing is the norm. You get elementary school. You get daycare. You get anti-intellectualism. You get the PMRC. You get temperance. You get pop songs like "Blurred Lines" not allowed to be played at dances.

The question is: why don't the people writing these article call this for what it is?

Why won't they be honest and say female students are causing this? And the quest to get more women into college has created a censoring, hysteria-based environment that's not conducive to learning -- or freedom of speech, for that matter.

[Seamus]

[delete]

[godfather dust]

Any lawyers here? Can you pass the bar without knowing this stuff? I certainly hope not, and these simps are pissing away hundreds of thousands of dollars due to cowardice.

[Que enspastic]

As long as you don't step foot inside a court in Criminal Law matters why should you need to know it. Envisage a law grad with stellar grades in Finance/Corporate/Banking law who was raped as a kid. He/she could still act as a professionally qualified lawyer with a corporate law firm assuming he/she had covered the main curriculum as prescribed by the legal board of that jurisdiction. You can have a Crim Law exam that doesn't touch sexual assault and instead requires analysis of a burglary turned manslaughter with accessories to the crime - as was the case with mine in 2009. The Board requires you to take credit in Crim Law as part of your qualifications as a lawyer but doesn't specify that an exam must cover a certain subject matter within a course.

[Seamus]

[edit]

[EvanWilson]

(12-16-2014 02:09 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  

Any lawyers here? Can you pass the bar without knowing this stuff? I certainly hope not, and these simps are pissing away hundreds of thousands of dollars due to cowardice.

You can pass the bar exam, but it will be a little harder because you will probably lose a few points if you do not know a subject area. In the 'typical' state bar exam, you only need to do about as well as about 70% of the other test takers; i.e. most people cluster around a few points. On the MBE (MultiState Bar Exam) part, people usually only need a scaled 135 (out of 200 questions) so you can miss about one third of the questions and still pass. With the scale, even if you only end up with 110 correct, the scale will usually put you into the pass range about 30% of the time. (MBE is one part, the essays are usually the other part of the exam in most states)

[Grodin]

If you find any word "triggering", then I don't think you should be allowed to practice law.

[AFS]

Some people become lawyers precisely because they were victimized and want to do something about it.

I seriously doubt the people getting "triggered" in these classes have ever faced actual abuse or assault. Especially telling is the fact that this trend of "sensitive" students is on the upswing, while cases of rape and assault are getting less frequent. This tells me these privileged, ultra-sensitive students are full of shit.