E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Friday, September 2, 2016

Stanford university missing the point with alcohol policy

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

Why is Stanford University siding with and providing cover for violent rapists? Why is Stanford abandoning women in order to provide convenient excuses for sexual predators who refuse to take responsibility for their behavior?

The opening paragraph of this post is hyperbole, but there is some truth to what I am saying here. Stanford's new alcohol policy is incredibly tone-deaf and is missing the point regarding sexual violence on campus. Worse yet, Stanford is implementing this alcohol policy on the heels of national outrage about an athlete saying that the campus drinking culture is what is to blame for him taking an unconscious woman behind a dumpster and violently raping her.

It's always someone else's fault, isn't it? Never mind that scores of college-age men get drunk and never commit rape. This is because alcohol does not cause rape. It can be used as a weapon, just as "roofies" are used as a weapon to make women vulnerable to abuse. Alcohol may impair judgment, but it does not force a man to penetrate an unconscious woman against her will or hold a woman down and violate her while she is begging him to stop. Rapists are moral agents who are responsible for their actions.

Stanford's policy is not necessarily a bad policy, because there are serious problems surrounding drinking culture. However, it does present problems and could even create new ones. One problem is that heavy drinking will move to private residences where there is no university supervision and students are more likely to engage in "pre-gaming" by getting wasted before they even go to a party. If prohibition drives drinking underground, it could make things less safe.

Implementing this policy now, though, sends a terrible message to rape survivors and to irresponsible "men" who now (intentionally or not) have an opportunity to point to university policy as "evidence" that their own responsibility for their crimes is at least minimized of not excused entirely. Even if one agrees with this policy, directly connecting it to rape was incredibly foolish. It also raises the disturbing specter of university administrators covering for violent criminals and thugs if they happen to be athletes - something we have seen elsewhere. Stanford shot itself in the foot with this policy, which was clearly not well thought out.

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.