Professor writes essay about sexual assault on campus being overblown

[Independent voter]

Laura Kipnis wasn't prepared for the outrage when she published her essay about sexual harassment and assault on campus being exaggerated. They even had her investigated under title 9.

She says things like women need to be assertive and tell men to stop their behavior instead of pressing charges. She's in favor of teaching women self defense and about the hazards of drinking in excess.

She tells this story about one female student sitting at lunch who found that a male student had is hand on one of her knees and a professor having his hand on her other knee. She says why not tell the guys to get their #$%@ing hands off your knees?!


http://www.npr.org/2017/04/09/522909...anted-advances

A few years ago Laura Kipnis — a tenured professor at Northwestern — published an essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education. In it she argued that the rules governing sexual relationships between students and professors had become draconian. The response was intense, eventually growing to include a Title IX investigation filed against Kipnis by two graduate students. She was ultimately cleared, but Kipnis has more to say. She tells me that Title IX, "which started out, you know, as something about equity for things like women's sports, was expanded in 2011 to include sexual harassment," including creating a hostile atmosphere on campuses. "Very vague sorts of things can now be charged under Title IX. So since then, because they didn't really specify how campuses should do this, there's just an incredible amount of overreach because all the campuses are afraid of losing their federal funding — and also being seen as soft on sexual assault."
Interview Highlights

On whether there is a sexual assault problem on campuses

It is an issue, but it's a question about whether it's more of an issue now, or whether what's being defined as sexual assault is actually being expanded. And so there a lot of cases where you have unwanted sex or ambiguous sex being labeled after the fact as sexual assault, or even consent being withdrawn after the fact, sometimes even years after the fact — and I wrote about a case like that in the book.

On deciding to write this book


I was in, like, an advantageous situation because I have tenure at a research university. But what happened was, after I wrote about my Title IX — the piece was called "My Title IX Inquisition" — I was just deluged with letters and emails from people all over the country who'd been through similar procedures. Not for an essay, but for all manner of other things, including things like making eye contact that somebody else didn't like, or telling a joke in an off-campus bar that somebody thought was overly sexual. So I had just all of this information that's just not public, and people who have been charged are afraid of coming forward, because they can be charged with more crimes if they go public, and the same thing in my case — I could have been charged with more retaliation complaints by going public — so I did feel there needs to be more transparency around this process, and more of a public discussion about how Title IX is being used.

... the fear around speaking out about this stuff, and the paranoia around sex has meant an overall decline in intellectual freedom.

Laura Kipnis

On her eventual exoneration

I almost thought the reason that I was cleared in this investigation was more to protect Title IX than necessarily to clear me. Because I do think that if I were found guilty of this charge and went public as I had said, I said I planned to write about the process, that Title IX would have come under a lot of scrutiny because of the abridgement of academic freedom, intellectual freedom. And I also do think the fear around speaking out about this stuff, and the paranoia around sex has meant an overall decline in intellectual freedom and the ability to ask tough questions about sexual politics on campus right now.

On training students to deal with sexual harassment and assault

I think women should be taught self-defense, physical self-defense. I think it changes your sense of yourself, your sense of agency, your ability to feel capable of dealing with situations where you are possibly threatened ... and I think we need to have honest discussions about drinking, and the amount of binge drinking and drinking to pass out that's going on. And that's not slut-shaming and it's not blaming the victim, but it is saying women ... we have to take responsibility for our bodies, not just leave it up to administrators and regulators, and not just leave it up to men to change, because, you know, what if they don't?

[PC2]

Part of it is overblown. Part of it is purely imaginary such as the existence of rape culture.

[Mistame]

I mean, when you expand what qualifies as "sexual harassment" there's bound to be more cases of "sexual harassment". It really has gotten absurd. I like this chic. Thanks for the link.

[Polyxo]

When she says 'draconian', I think 'no longer a rape and sexual harassment free for all'. On things like sexual harassment and assault being expanded; yes, they are, as they should be.

[Snorkles]

She tells this story about one female student sitting at lunch who found that a male student had is hand on one of her knees and a professor having his hand on her other knee. She says why not tell the guys to get their #$%@ing hands off your knees?!

Her example seems quite odd? She's right in that she should have told them to fuck off, but two guys groping her seems like the definition of sexual harassment?

[Mistame]

How exactly is what we qualify as sexual harassment exaggerated?

That was a typo on my part (fixed). It was supposed to be "expand". Brain moves faster than my fingers. :/

But to that point, one could start with "including creating a hostile atmosphere".

[Creotor]

Her example seems quite odd? She's right in that she should have told them to fuck off, but two guys groping her seems like the definition of sexual harassment?

Ties into thicker skin.
Some women are too afraid of telling the harasser to fuck off even during the mildest harassments, for various reasons. Those particular women also seem to immediately fall into a role of a helpless victim, at the mercy of the harasser. That ends up fucking with their psyche. Minor incidents, such as a hand on a knee, permanently change them, all because they're used to thinking of themselves as helpless instead of growing 'a pair' and stopping that shit dead in its tracks, as they should.
The reporting and what not may deal with the offenders, but will not help much with how those women view the world since, in their opinion, they're still at the mercy of their environment. The author mentions 'sense of own agency' or some such and that's what it is ultimately about.

I would write more, but I will probably catch enough flak for this post as is and I don't feel like mindlessly arguing for pages.

TL;DR: Reporting is fine and all, but no one should be a pussy.

[Snorkles]

I think the other student shouldn't be guilty of anything in that situation but a professor should be held to a higher standard, assuming it's a professor she currently has or more than likely will have in the future. She can tell the student to fuck off without any repercussions on her part, usually. But not so much the professor.

Well both are quite clearly guilty of at least something - groping her. Whether that warrants escalation is maybe open to debate. But to suggest he is not guilty of anything is a bare faced lie.

[Mistame]

Well, same thing really, exaggerated/expanded.

Meh, not really.

I mean, "creating a hostile atmosphere" could mean a lot of things.

Which is the problem. It's too vague. Theoretically, if a girl feels "uncomfortable" or "threatened", even if no one has talked to her or touched her, is that "sexual assault"?

There's an episode of It's always Sunny about consent. Essentially one character says a good way to get laid is to "take a girl out on a boat because they won't say no to sex, you know, because of the implications" of danger.

That seems a bit more clear cut depending on what you actually say. A similar situation could be if you have a girl over at your place that is pretty far from hers and she doesn't have a reasonable way to leave. Would it be sexual harassment/rape to blatantly tell her that either she has sex with you or she has to leave? Essentially walk home if she's unable to get a ride. Honestly, I'm not even too sure. Obviously that guy is a piece of shit though. Even if someone said that that was sexual harassment then what about if instead of blatantly saying it, you just strongly implied it? I think to stay consistent, you would have to always say that's sexual harassment but It's hard for me to agree that it is. The guy is still a piece of shit though.

Pretty sure both of those scenarios fall under "coercion" and would constitute rape, if an assault occurred. If nothing happened and he didn't touch her, it's certainly shitty behavior but not "rape" or even "sexual assault".

I do believe that the above scenarios very clearly become sexual harassment if the party who is being pressured to make that decision is intoxicated.

I don't think intoxication is relevant unless she's effectively unconscious, as neither consent nor coercion as factors don't change.

I also do think some people take it a bit too far. Is it sexual harassment to just keep pressuring a girl to have sex with you? Even to go as far as treating her like shit if she refuses? As in some kind of mental abuse, not physical in anyway. Some people would say it is, but I definitely wouldn't think so.

I'd have to agree there. I don't believe in an obligation to treat anyone any certain way. If some chic tells me she wants to fool around and then declines at the last moment, that's her right. It's also my right to never talk to her again.

Some girls have trouble saying no or turning down a guy even when they're perfectly clear headed. They just need to learn to say no and not hang out douchefucks.

I find nothing wrong with promiscuity for either sex.

[THE Bigzoman]

The ironyof this whole thing is that the witch-hunters made an enemy out of her unnecessarily.

The original piece she wrote wasn't even about sexual assualt on college campuses; it was her airing her grievances about new policies banning sexual/romantic relationships between graduate students and faculty:

Original Piece: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Sex...trikes/190351/

The policies she originally had a beef with: http://policies.northwestern.edu/doc...ons_011314.pdf

Her own account of the entire fiasco: http://laurakipnis.com/wp-content/up...le-Review-.pdf

[Mistame]

I agree it's pretty vague, but it's a difficult thing to remove that vagueness without it overextending or not extending far enough.

Even still, it's entirely subjective. And without any degree of actual coercion, it's hard to make the case for it.

Well, yeah. A drink or two wouldn't matter. I even think blacked out drunkness shouldn't automatically constitute rape in all situations. Probably most, but not all.

"Blackout" drunk merely refers to the point at which you don't remember the next day (Not implying you don't know this, just clarifying). In many if not most cases, this is well before the point of being incapacitated beyond the ability to consent.

I'm not really sure how that's relevant to what you quoted. I'm just saying that a girl shouldn't be allowed to accuse someone of sexual harassment or whatever because she was too scared to say no as long as those "implications" of danger didn't exist.

I misunderstood the context of what I read. And I agree. If it's just a matter of "too scared", when there was no actual threat it's pretty absurd to call it "rape", etc.

[May90]

At my university back in my home country, a student got drunk, argued with another student and killed him with a knife, then attempted to commit suicide by jumping out the window in the dorm, but only managed to break the legs and survived. The administration's reaction was, "Oh well, stuff happens." A couple decades before that, a student attacked a professor with an axe, causing a similar reaction.

Decide for yourself which mentality is better.

[Breccia]

They have a point, and might even be able to defend that point, but it's a ridiculously dangerous thing for a college professor to say. If the new guy at your mechanic says "oh, and you only need to get your oil changed ever 25,000 miles or so" it doesn't really matter if he's telling the truth, that guy is fired.