4 ms·

Centering employers and schools in programs to reduce sexual harassment has developed as the consensus approach because it is where relatively privileged women

Centering employers and schools in programs to reduce sexual harassment has developed as the consensus approach because it is where relatively privileged women (often rich, often white) are most keenly affected by it. That's despite the fact that, even once age-adjusted, students are victimized by rape at a lower rate than non-students. Why not courts? Courts are constitutionally required to have a higher standard of evidence than other institutions. In the usual case where a rape has absolutely occurred, the evidence often amounts to he-said/she-said. That's rarely enough for a conviction. That's understandably deeply dispiriting to anti-rape activists, so they move activism toward places that can afford lower evidentiary standards. Is that the right way? Who knows. But I think it may be best to treat sexual assault as an epidemiological problem. That's hard to swallow--after all, rapists are bad people and deserve severe punishment, not dry statistical treatments. But given how hard it is to "fairly" prosecute rape, treating programs to end sexual assault as interventions to decrease incidence and then measuring how effective they are seems like it may be more productive in the long term.

prepend 9y ago
“Why not courts? Courts are constitutionally required to have a higher standard of evidence than other institutions. In the usual case where a rape has absolutely occurred, the evidence often amounts to he-said/she-said. That's rarely enough for a conviction. That's understandably deeply dispiriting to anti-rape activists, so they move activism toward places that can afford lower evidentiary standards.” This is a really interesting idea. But how would you confirm sexual assault. Are you saying that “innocent until proven guilty” should be revised? What other crimes do you think this should apply?
- scarmig 9y ago
  I was being descriptive of why courts don't effectively adjudicate sexual assault now. I wasn't proposing any particular solution, because it is a hard problem. As a thought experiment, you can imagine a world where courts are required to give instructions to the jury, telling them that they must always treat an alleged victim's testimony as a 100% accurate representation of the incident. That would make most sexual assault cases slam dunk. And it'd result in more guilty rapists being convicted, and very likely more of them than the number of innocent people falsely accused of rape. Is that an appropriate use of institutions of justice? I don't think so. And it wouldn't be sustainable, as it'd weaponize accusations in a way that they're not now: you'd rapidly see people abusing it, and see a huge backlash. But there's not an alternative justice-wise to that, which is why attentions are turned to other institutions that can only offer a slap on the wrist, but a slap on the wrist that can be based on very little evidence. No one is really happy with that reality, but no one has any better ideas. That's why an epidemiological approach--running tests on everything from lights, to educational programs, to banning hard alcohol at school or work sponsored events--seems like the best way out of this hole to me.
  - sheepmullet 9y ago
    > That's why an epidemiological approach--running tests on everything from lights, to educational programs, to banning hard alcohol at school or work sponsored events--seems like the best way out of this hole to me. The problem is the methods that are most likely to be effective are considered victim blaming. E.g. Teaching women how to directly and clearly say no. Or making it socially inappropriate to get blind drunk. Etc etc.
    - scarmig 9y ago
      I agree. Any effective strategy to reduce rape will involve the participation of victims, but all too often their advocates treat any guidelines as a way of saying "if you didn't get so blackout drunk, you wouldn't have been raped!" And so those types of educational interventions are underused.
  - belorn 9y ago
    Running tests is nice as long you hold the experimenters accountable to actually measure the effect. For example, educational programs sound as a rational idea until you look at older studies that looked at the effect of increasing the punishment for crime. As I recall there were no effect for most form of violence, including sexual violence, with the researchers conclusion that much crime don't follow rational planning. If the criminal don't do a risk vs reward analysis before the crime, then increasing the punishment won't have an effect on the thought processes. Similar education and work sponsored events is unlikely to help if the action is irrational and involve a lot of self-delusions. I can see how mores lights and banning hard alcohol can work. People have a emotional reaction to light, and drugs/alcohol operate on the part of the brain that handles social interaction and inhibitions.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > What other crimes do you think this should apply? There are lots of individual torts and crimes which employer or school failure to prevent or respond to creates tort liability for the institution in the same manner as sexual harassment and which therefore employers and schools practically must deal with through both prevention and responsive policies that do not wait on the legal system. For one large class, pretty much all acts of violence fall into this category.
forgotpassagan 9y ago
Letting schools handle it because the standard of evidence is lower is insane. Rape is a serious crime, and suggesting we should lower the standard of evidence because it's hard to prove is appalling. The one thing more important than protecting potential victims is not punishing innocent people. I know someone that was accused of rape years ago in school. Expelled, lost scholarships, reputation ruined. All from some 'arbitration board' with no trial. Thing was, the girl was a frequent liar and had a grudge against him for kindling a relationship then going off to date someone else. The group of friends connected to her, me included, all knew that. This guy was not the shady or violent type at all. He had never even been to court before that. My friend even claims he was with him that night but since we lived in the same building he had no proof. None of that mattered, they decided that he 'might be guilty' on her word and proceeded to ruin his life. The exact thing courts were created to prevent, arbitrary justice with no laws and a low standard of evidence. Maybe we need a simpler solution. Cameras in all public areas of student housing would catch a much larger proportion of rape. But no, that's too simple, we need to change the laws so it's possible to get your life fucked on someone else's word
- late2part 9y ago
  "Letting schools handle it because the standard of evidence is lower is insane. " Thank you for saying it properly and so concisely.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  Cameras won't catch anything. Typical rape accusations involve places that are not covered or situations that would be complex to evaluate even given full footage. And do we really want a society where everything is recorded? Just think of the abuse potential from camera operators.
mcguire 9y ago
Are you jumping from sexual harassment to rape? One of those is usually a civil matter when courts do see them.
busterarm 9y ago
I just want to draw attention to a certain chain of logic in one of your sentences... > usual case > rape has absolutely occurred > evidence often amounts to he-said/she-said All of these things can't be true.
- gizmo686 9y ago
  I don't think point 2 is that we have evidence that rape had occured. Rather, the (intended) claim was that even when a rape occurred, the evidence available would amount to he-said/she-said. I read "absolutely" in this to exclude cases where the question is not one of facts, but of definitions. Eg. if the victim was somewhat intoxicated, both sides can agree exactly on the facts of what occurred, but disagree if the victims consent was valid.
  - busterarm 9y ago
    "Rape Kits", or rather, the standardization of process for collecting evidence after a sexual assault, are surprisingly good at collecting usable (convictable) evidence after a sexual assault. The biggest problem with them is that roughly half of them go untested. When they are tested, however, they're actually incredibly good at the successful prosecution and conviction of sexual assault cases.
    - gizmo686 9y ago
      When the rape was reported soon enough for evidence to be collectable; and when it was a form of rape that leaves a distinctive mark relative to consensual sex. I do not know how prototypical these both of these conditions are; but at most, you would reduce the "usual" qualified to "non-negligible", as there certainly are cases that do not meat the criterion to have a usable rape kit. (Unrelated note, in writing this comment, I tried looking for relevant statistics; but found I have no idea what to even search for. Anyone have anything?)
- scarmig 9y ago
  Sure they can. It can be possible for a rape to have occurred, but for there to be no evidence beyond the victim saying so. That's the most usual case, and why dealing with rape is so hard.
cafard 9y ago
Relatively privileged? Schools, perhaps, but what about waitresses and retail staff?
- scarmig 9y ago
  Waitresses and retail staff are likely among the most susceptible to sexual harassment and violence. They have much less access to media firestorms, large cash settlements, and other protective measures than high prestige jobs.

prepend 9y ago

“Why not courts? Courts are constitutionally required to have a higher standard of evidence than other institutions. In the usual case where a rape has absolutely occurred, the evidence often amounts to he-said/she-said. That's rarely enough for a conviction. That's understandably deeply dispiriting to anti-rape activists, so they move activism toward places that can afford lower evidentiary standards.” This is a really interesting idea. But how would you confirm sexual assault. Are you saying that “innocent until proven guilty” should be revised? What other crimes do you think this should apply?

scarmig 9y ago
I was being descriptive of why courts don't effectively adjudicate sexual assault now. I wasn't proposing any particular solution, because it is a hard problem. As a thought experiment, you can imagine a world where courts are required to give instructions to the jury, telling them that they must always treat an alleged victim's testimony as a 100% accurate representation of the incident. That would make most sexual assault cases slam dunk. And it'd result in more guilty rapists being convicted, and very likely more of them than the number of innocent people falsely accused of rape. Is that an appropriate use of institutions of justice? I don't think so. And it wouldn't be sustainable, as it'd weaponize accusations in a way that they're not now: you'd rapidly see people abusing it, and see a huge backlash. But there's not an alternative justice-wise to that, which is why attentions are turned to other institutions that can only offer a slap on the wrist, but a slap on the wrist that can be based on very little evidence. No one is really happy with that reality, but no one has any better ideas. That's why an epidemiological approach--running tests on everything from lights, to educational programs, to banning hard alcohol at school or work sponsored events--seems like the best way out of this hole to me.
- sheepmullet 9y ago
  > That's why an epidemiological approach--running tests on everything from lights, to educational programs, to banning hard alcohol at school or work sponsored events--seems like the best way out of this hole to me. The problem is the methods that are most likely to be effective are considered victim blaming. E.g. Teaching women how to directly and clearly say no. Or making it socially inappropriate to get blind drunk. Etc etc.
  - scarmig 9y ago
    I agree. Any effective strategy to reduce rape will involve the participation of victims, but all too often their advocates treat any guidelines as a way of saying "if you didn't get so blackout drunk, you wouldn't have been raped!" And so those types of educational interventions are underused.
- belorn 9y ago
  Running tests is nice as long you hold the experimenters accountable to actually measure the effect. For example, educational programs sound as a rational idea until you look at older studies that looked at the effect of increasing the punishment for crime. As I recall there were no effect for most form of violence, including sexual violence, with the researchers conclusion that much crime don't follow rational planning. If the criminal don't do a risk vs reward analysis before the crime, then increasing the punishment won't have an effect on the thought processes. Similar education and work sponsored events is unlikely to help if the action is irrational and involve a lot of self-delusions. I can see how mores lights and banning hard alcohol can work. People have a emotional reaction to light, and drugs/alcohol operate on the part of the brain that handles social interaction and inhibitions.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> What other crimes do you think this should apply? There are lots of individual torts and crimes which employer or school failure to prevent or respond to creates tort liability for the institution in the same manner as sexual harassment and which therefore employers and schools practically must deal with through both prevention and responsive policies that do not wait on the legal system. For one large class, pretty much all acts of violence fall into this category.

forgotpassagan 9y ago

Letting schools handle it because the standard of evidence is lower is insane. Rape is a serious crime, and suggesting we should lower the standard of evidence because it's hard to prove is appalling. The one thing more important than protecting potential victims is not punishing innocent people. I know someone that was accused of rape years ago in school. Expelled, lost scholarships, reputation ruined. All from some 'arbitration board' with no trial. Thing was, the girl was a frequent liar and had a grudge against him for kindling a relationship then going off to date someone else. The group of friends connected to her, me included, all knew that. This guy was not the shady or violent type at all. He had never even been to court before that. My friend even claims he was with him that night but since we lived in the same building he had no proof. None of that mattered, they decided that he 'might be guilty' on her word and proceeded to ruin his life. The exact thing courts were created to prevent, arbitrary justice with no laws and a low standard of evidence. Maybe we need a simpler solution. Cameras in all public areas of student housing would catch a much larger proportion of rape. But no, that's too simple, we need to change the laws so it's possible to get your life fucked on someone else's word

late2part 9y ago
"Letting schools handle it because the standard of evidence is lower is insane. " Thank you for saying it properly and so concisely.
AstralStorm 9y ago
Cameras won't catch anything. Typical rape accusations involve places that are not covered or situations that would be complex to evaluate even given full footage. And do we really want a society where everything is recorded? Just think of the abuse potential from camera operators.

mcguire 9y ago

Are you jumping from sexual harassment to rape? One of those is usually a civil matter when courts do see them.

busterarm 9y ago

I just want to draw attention to a certain chain of logic in one of your sentences... > usual case > rape has absolutely occurred > evidence often amounts to he-said/she-said All of these things can't be true.

gizmo686 9y ago
I don't think point 2 is that we have evidence that rape had occured. Rather, the (intended) claim was that even when a rape occurred, the evidence available would amount to he-said/she-said. I read "absolutely" in this to exclude cases where the question is not one of facts, but of definitions. Eg. if the victim was somewhat intoxicated, both sides can agree exactly on the facts of what occurred, but disagree if the victims consent was valid.
- busterarm 9y ago
  "Rape Kits", or rather, the standardization of process for collecting evidence after a sexual assault, are surprisingly good at collecting usable (convictable) evidence after a sexual assault. The biggest problem with them is that roughly half of them go untested. When they are tested, however, they're actually incredibly good at the successful prosecution and conviction of sexual assault cases.
  - gizmo686 9y ago
    When the rape was reported soon enough for evidence to be collectable; and when it was a form of rape that leaves a distinctive mark relative to consensual sex. I do not know how prototypical these both of these conditions are; but at most, you would reduce the "usual" qualified to "non-negligible", as there certainly are cases that do not meat the criterion to have a usable rape kit. (Unrelated note, in writing this comment, I tried looking for relevant statistics; but found I have no idea what to even search for. Anyone have anything?)
scarmig 9y ago
Sure they can. It can be possible for a rape to have occurred, but for there to be no evidence beyond the victim saying so. That's the most usual case, and why dealing with rape is so hard.

cafard 9y ago

Relatively privileged? Schools, perhaps, but what about waitresses and retail staff?

scarmig 9y ago
Waitresses and retail staff are likely among the most susceptible to sexual harassment and violence. They have much less access to media firestorms, large cash settlements, and other protective measures than high prestige jobs.