I can see how some people might be moving toward silencing women in this case - in the wake of the Duke incident.

It pisses me off, though, because the perps are the ones giving the benefit of the doubt - and never the women.

It's as if, to say, rape is such a serious crime that they've got to side with the accused rather than the victims.

You know what's even sadder? That we even need this in the first place - that it's a program women gravitate toward, and has some meaning to them. It only means that the rape crisis is still on-going on our campuses, and that the public sphere is still a dangerous place for half of the student body.

On another note, kind of related, I believe "Take Back the Night" ought to just be called, "Take the Night ..." as we know the night never fully belonged to women. To "take" rather than "take back" is a powerful representation in terms of language.

Ooops, GIVEN the benefit of the doubt, and not GIVING. Sorry. Those two words can have different meanings in the context of what I said.

We had the same project at my university in Ohio and it got shut down too, because the state took away the funding for it.

The university is making the right call here. The problem is that this is a university sponsored event. As such they are responsible for the contents of it. It will be the university that will be left defending the defamation suit. Its not clear that whether the t-shirts are anonymous, but imagine the nightmare of trying to defend the making of an anyonymous allegation of sexual assault against a defamation suit.

This article
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/bal-md.clothesline04oct04,0,1802008.story

quotes an administration official who I think is correct:

"Linda Clement, UM's vice president of student affairs, emphasized that the campus would not seek to curtail individual student speech on campus, even potentially slanderous speech. But she said that as a formal sponsor of the event, the college had to consider its potential liability to people who might claim they were falsely accused.

"It would be different if an individual were going to write something on a shirt and put something up individually," Clement said. "Then it would be free speech. But if it is an office sponsoring an event, I think we have to adhere to the law."

Read between the lines and she is virtually telling them do their own independent event. Thats really the solution here.

So, we're worried about law suits instead of doing what's right? Conciousness raising and naming the perps are the backseat because of potential lawsuits? Hmmm, because every woman goes around accusing others of rape and imagine stories of being raped, right?

Sometimes, we society, we've got to stand up and have the courage to speak for something. UM's officials just aren't doing that ...and to think, UM has one of the best WMST programs out there.

I was just gonna say, why not throw your own event.. yeah.

Anyway, it really sucks! If this were any other crime besides rape, would they be asking to abstain from naming?

Anyway, it really sucks! If this were any other crime besides rape, would they be asking to abstain from naming?

Yes

As a lawyer, I can't disagree with the university lawyers' recommendation. Unless you want the university-sponsored event canceled altogether.

I think that the legal issue is bullshit, but I do understand it. The problem here is that the university should not sponsor an event that they are not willing to back up and hold properly. If their lawyers tell them that in order to hold the event, they need to silence rape victims, they should choose not sponsor the event themselves and help the organizers find their another funding stream. I'm sure that they could also anonymously fund it, but of course what's the point of giving money if you don't get the publicity. That would make them the "bigger person" in this situation, and as it stands they (rightfully) look like rape-apologetic assholes. They may have gotten good legal advice, but it sure sounds to me like they need a better PR team.

We held the same event for Take Back the Night at UC Davis earlier this year. I was actually in charge of the clothesline project. We were explicitly told that we could write FIRST names regardless of whether or not they were convicted. The only way we could write last names was if they were convicted. The thought process was the odds of doing any "damage" to someone's "reputation" based on first name alone was not possible. But, if we included first and last name, they could sue for damages unless we could prove it's true. Hence the only using last names if convicted bit.

I'm hoping this is what happened at U of Maryland and that it is simply getting misrepresented. If not... that's just ridiculous. There is no reason a survivor shouldn't be able to write the first name of their attacker.

okay legal people... question: it's not illegal to use a criminals name publicly in newspapers and media. So whats the issue in this case?

Were the perps convicted or not? Is that the case here? That there is question of their guilt?

ProFeministMale - Students are free to say what they want at their own risk, but the university must protect itself when it sponsors an event like this.

Here is one point you might be missing. If the University sponsors the event, you could potentially end up with guilty rapists suing the university (for example if charges were never pressed against them or were dropped). Would you like to give them a golden opportunity to profit from their crimes?

"Hmmm, because every woman goes around accusing others of rape and imagine stories of being raped, right?"

Either that or because they're afraid a few people (whether women or men or both) would explot the event to wreck the reps of whomever they're bullying...

Liz:

From the article I linked above:

"Affixed to a painter's easel was a note reading: "For legal reasons, the University Health Center has decided that no shirt will be hung if it contains both first and last names of perpetrators and/or specifically identifying information."

So basically it looks like the same rule you followed.

To Frog Queen:

It would be okay to list people who were convicted, but almost certainly the issue is the people who want to name those who have been not convicted.

You will notice that when the media is reporting about people who have been accused or arrested or being tried the term "alleged" is used. Also there is generally a limited privilege to that prevents liability for defamation to report the ongoings of legal proceedings.

"There's power in naming"

Damn straight there is. Ask the Duke guys how their job searches are going these days. You better believe the power of naming affected them. Unfortunately they didn't rape anyone. For the very same reason you presume innocence in all crimes until guilt is PROVEN so you don't send innocent people to jail, you can't allow unproven naming of people as rapists. To avoid the jailing of 1 innocent person it is better that 10 guilty go free. Same deal.

Frogqueen, for liability reasons the media would almost never use a suspect's name unless he had been named by the police or in a judicial proceeding. Lookit what happened in the Richard Jewell case.

It seems like the organizers of this thing would be better served making sure that victims have a fair-but-tough campus procedure for reporting crimes.

NoName, what's more important, a potential lawsuit or bringing closure and possibly justice to rape victims? I'd pick the latter.

The point is, when it comes to social justice, we can't take a step to try to protect ourselves from liability.

I am not one to wear my heart on my sleeve, but certain issues need to be fought with vigor and determination, rather than legal calculations. Rape is one of those things.

"To avoid the jailing of 1 innocent person it is better that 10 guilty go free."

Wait, what? Isn't it better that no innocent people are jailed and no guilty people go free?

i'm not going to say it doesn't trouble me at all, but the university is acting on sound legal advice and making a rational decision here.

“For the very same reason you presume innocence in all crimes until guilt is PROVEN so you don't send innocent people to jail, you can't allow unproven naming of people as rapists.�
Presumption of innocence is only in a court of law. It doesn’t by any means imply that people cannot even mention their assailants until they can prove their case in court. On the other hand I am really wondering how you know about the poor little Duke guys’ job searches. Are you just assuming? Also, charges were dropped ~= they didn’t rape anyone. It just means there wasn’t enough consistent evidence.

First thing: before you apply for financial aid, sign up for classes, attend orientation, buy your books, and so forth...GET MARTIAL ARTS TRAINING. I'd had some judo, wrestling and growing up with three brothers for training. I would recommend model mugging.

If you are attacked, beat the living crap out of the guy (or at least get physically well away from him -- or THEM), and then CALL THE CITY POLICE *NOT* CAMPUS SECURITY. Campus security is there to protect the perps and the reputation of the university, NOT YOU.

I did this.

OK I didn't break any of his bones, but I did get him off me long enough to run away and lock myself into a nearby lab with a phone. My reason for calling the city cops was that 911 came instantly to mind, whereas I had no idea what the number was for campus security.

It turned out to be the right thing to do, however. The cops came while the guy was banging on the lab door trying to get at me still.

The next day, the Dean of the DIVISION called ME in, and threatened to expell me for "embarrassing the university" by calling the city cops.

I told him that if he did, I would follow through with filing charges, and that I would name HIM as an accessory.

This is how I got to stay in school, y'all. If I hadn't had martial arts training, I'd be a rape victim to this day, and if I'd called campus security instead of The Law, I'd have been thrown out of school.

That being said, I don't know what would happen today -- they'd probably TASER us both and give us one-way tickets to Oblivion on Extraordinary Rendition Airlines.

It seems like the organizers of this thing would be better served making sure that victims have a fair-but-tough campus procedure for reporting crimes.

First, the "campus procedure" for reporting a crime shouldn't be any different than reporting a crime off-campus. Second, and most important, it should never be "tough" for a victim (or anyone else) to report a crime, ever.

P.F.M.: From the university's perspective, a potential lawsuit. Women are free to organize on their own to achieve closure, and I'm sure they don't need to do so on the school's timetable.

sojourner, don't be opening up that Duke case or else they're going to come out of the woodwork and this will turn into a Duke thread here. That case was a rare instance where men were charged with a crime for which the D.A. subsequently admitted there was no credible evidence; he was disbarred; and the attorney general who took over the case said the guys were "innocent." For every Duke there are hundreds where they got the guy dead to rights. And note the system failed in the Duke case because of an unscrupulous D.A. (a male). The accuser apparently was unbalanced but the D.A. never should have pursued it.

well I guess its obvious that the university should just bow out all together since they're dictating what rape victims can and can't do to express their feeling about the crimes committed against them.

"I am not one to wear my heart on my sleeve, but certain issues need to be fought with vigor and determination, rather than legal calculations. Rape is one of those things."

First off, "legal calculations" is a very bland and intentionally oblique way of describing what could happen to a falsely accused person (or a person who even just shares a similar uncommon name, leading others to think "it must be him!"). I usually hate when people go on and on about "false accusations" because it smacks of undermining the victim and undermining women's ability to be taken seriously, but it certainly happens. An innocent person deserves just as much consideration as a victim. That's how our system is built.

Secondly, is anonymously accusing people a priori, no trial, no nothing, really a valid way to fight with vigor and determination?

And if the university did allow full-name postings, might that not totally undermine the purpose of this demonstration, turning it into a rubbernecking event rather than a consciousness-raising demonstration demanding that we think critically about sexual violence? I could see students dropping by solely to see whose names were up there, but missing the larger point entirely.

Oh give me a break. This is just another institution trying to protect their own asses, at the expense of women.

You really think that a bunch of rapists and molesters are going to turn up at this thing, find their names written, and then sue? How likely is that?

This is pathetic. You can't write a full name on a shirt? I mean, that completely takes away from the greatness of this event. It's all about saving these poor men/rapists from having their reputations smeared. And we all know that a man's reputation is WAY more important than a woman's bodily integrity, right to safety, and right to fucking talk about WHO raped her!

GRRRRR. If I went there, I'd put my grandfather's full name out there. I mean, they really think he's going to be there? And what rapist is going to sue anyways? Only a stupid one.

Secondly, is anonymously accusing people a priori, no trial, no nothing, really a valid way to fight with vigor and determination?

Yes. Because you mistake the purpose of the naming--it's not about "accusing" the poor rapists. It's about the women raped by men having a forum in which they can find their voices and be supported. Openly talking about what men have done to women personally and individually is a vital part of Take Back the Night. What about the speak-outs? Are women telling their stories supposed to censor the names of the men who raped him during the speak-outs as well?

Agreed, Shelby. When you've been attacked, "tough" is anything but "fair." And it's already pretty fucking tough. Police fail to file reports and harass victims all of the time. It's a shame both for those victims and for any future victims of attack who may hear about these circumstances and choose to not report as a result. It's also horrific for trust in the police. Though they don't get as much publicity, there are good cops out there, but right now there are enough bad ones that people can't tell the difference and simply fear and resent them all. I don't know how anyone could argue that that's the way to go.

"Yes. Because you mistake the purpose of the naming--it's not about "accusing" the poor rapists. It's about the women raped by men having a forum in which they can find their voices and be supported."

First of all, how is naming someone as your rapist in a public forum not accusing them?

Second, I feel women can find their voices and be supported without using full names. If they want to, of course that's their choice, but I don't see why the university would have to support that. In other forums such as AA, when someone speaks about their experiences (and that's an intentionally anonymous forum, where participants agree to "keep it in the room"), they often intentionally omit personal details. I think it is very possible to support women but ask them not to use the full names of their attacker unless convicted (as pointed out by someone above). It just seems like the responsible thing to do.

Edit, by "personal details" above I meant "identifying details about others not in the room." Apologies for a lack of clarity ...

I think it is very possible to support women but ask them not to use the full names of their attacker unless convicted (as pointed out by someone above). It just seems like the responsible thing to do.

No it seems like the highly-insensitive thing to do, and yet another way to tell victims that the men who raped them have more rights than they do. As if they really need a reminder most of the time.

Why is it that seemingly educated, bright folks are unable to distinguish between a court of law and everything else.

People are "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law. Not in my kitchen, where I might be telling a story to a friend. Not on my blog, where I might be writing an article for anyone out there to read or discussing an incident with a large number of people.
People are presumed "innocent" by the court system; that's it. The rest of us are not required to presume John Doe's innocence.

The University would fear potential liability if it sanctioned allowing women to publicly accuse men of rape without due process (like the men used to accuse women of witchcraft). A certain southern school recently paid an apparently enormous settlement because the University gave quasi-sanction to professors who suggested in writing that certain lacrosse players were guilty without an adjudication of guilt. The women can wear a shirt themselves and while they would run the risk of potential liability for libel if the allegation were untrue, no responsible University would have any part of that.

First of all, how is naming someone as your rapist in a public forum not accusing them?

Because the world and this even does not revolve around what this speech-act means to the rapist; it revolves around what it means to the woman. Naming the rapist is part of the woman's telling her story, which is the point.

I feel women can find their voices and be supported without using full names. If they want to, of course that's their choice, but I don't see why the university would have to support that. In other forums such as AA, when someone speaks about their experiences (and that's an intentionally anonymous forum, where participants agree to "keep it in the room"), they often intentionally omit personal details.

Well, you hit the nail on the head: those are AA's own rules. AA and its members have decided that that's how they want to run things. One might also add that one of the reasons for this is that AA members may well be talking about people they have hurt, intentionally or not, through their alcoholism, and maintaining those people's anonymity is a way of protecting them. Here we are talking specifically about women who have been hurt.

Finally, no-one is arguing that the university must do anything. We are talking about what the university should do. It's amazing how many people confuse morality with legal obligation.

"I think it is very possible to support women but ask them not to use the full names of their attacker unless convicted (as pointed out by someone above). It just seems like the responsible thing to do.

"No it seems like the highly-insensitive thing to do, and yet another way to tell victims that the men who raped them have more rights than they do. As if they really need a reminder most of the time."

While this could stop A from using the event to announce "B raped me" after B did rape her or him...

...couldn't it also stop C from using the event to announce "A raped me" after A didn't rape her or him and C just decided to bully A?

SarahMC, the University justifiably would fear potential civil suits for defamation by sanctioning public naming. You, personally, are free to accuse someone, but that wouldn't subject the University to a claim of defamation, only you if it turned out you lied. The University's Board of Regents and its insurer would not allow the University to sanction individuals to accuse others of any crime -- rape, or theft, or murder.

First of all, how is naming someone as your rapist in a public forum not accusing them?

Because the world and this even does not revolve around what this speech-act means to the rapist; it revolves around what it means to the woman. Naming the rapist is part of the woman's telling her story, which is the point.

Exactly: it serves as both. Just because I am bringing up the question of possible consequences of this naming doesn't mean I don't understand that this is a question about the woman's experience. I think you're confusing my question with a lack of support for victims. We disagree on this point, but I certainly support the victim's need to tell her story.

Finally, no-one is arguing that the university must do anything. We are talking about what the university should do. It's amazing how many people confuse morality with legal obligation.

You are right about the AA thing ... good point. However, I am not confusing morality and legal obligation. I am pointing out that our legal system set an "innocent until proven guilty" standard for a reason, and I think in part it is a moral stance, and one that should be considered in relationship to this question.

I think it's a good idea to advise the women not to write the full names of the rapists on the shirts, or at least advise them that if they do, their rapists could potentially bring a lawsuit against them.

I'm just so f'ing sick of all this bs that rape victims have to go through. It is SO hard to get a conviction- even if you DO press charges, doesn't mean the DA will take the case. Doesn't mean you'll win, in fact, most likely you will lose. You will be dragged through the mud and he will end up being acquitted, and will be able to spend the rest of his life knowing that he got away with rape.

So, requiring a conviction before we can name our rapists, means, that we can not ever name our rapists. Essentially, that's what it means. That means only the teensy teensy tiny percentage of raped women actually get to name their rapist. Cause ya know, that's fair!

Comparing AA to women trying to speak out about a man raping them is not a great comparison. The purpose of AA is so that people can get support without having their issues aired in public. This is like, the exact opposite of what a speak out or take back the night or clothesline project is all about.

I understand what people are saying about the University's role in this-and I will restate: They are protecting their own asses at the expense of rape victims. If they think that is "moral" than whatever. I think it is awful.

Maybe I've got my head in the clouds again, as my professor would often say, but what about this idea? A shirt with the names of convicted rapists in the back, and something like, "Speak Out - Add a Name."

I think conciousness raising, while in a sense of politics, is ineffective, it certain does help with letting people know they are not alone and to bring to light an epidemic as well.

While this could stop A from using the event to announce "B raped me" after B did rape her or him...

...couldn't it also stop C from using the event to announce "A raped me" after A didn't rape her or him and C just decided to bully A?

I suppose. But I imagine that most women who have reason to fear retaliation from their rapists probably would not put a full name on their shirt. I imagine that most women who do are not subjected to interacting with their rapists or around people who might know their rapist. Of course, some women might name men who are currently on the same campus, and I think that its their right to do so. But the more common scenario probably includes a woman who was raped in her hometown, or raped by a man from a different school, etc.

I agree with Jenny that a gentle advisory may be in order to protect these women. But I do think that most women are smart enough to not go around antagonizing a rapist that they might run into in the near future.

Working/Going to School/Running the newspaper at a university has given me an interesting perspective on this... specifically what is and isn't university sponsored events.

ANYTHING that students organize that takes place on campus, even if they are not part of a registered group on campus or even if they don't have technical permission, is considered a university sponsored event. If an outside group comes in with permission, it is a University sponsored event. This does NOT mean that it is a university SUPPORTED event.

If it is supported by student fees, administration has NO say over how those fees are spent, the students/student government does. The students vote to charge themselves the fee and the administration cannot mandate those funds. As much as administration would like people to believe that they have the final say, at a public university if it is not directly class or tuition related, they don't.

At the College Media Advisors conference back in March, I swear every other forum I went to something came up about university administration trying to butt in on things they had no right to.

From the little bit I have found/read about this situation, the students can do whatever they want provided it still falls under protected speech (ie, doesnt try to incite violence, which being a event against violence, i doubt). While students rights have been under attack for a while, there is still such a thing as academic freedom (at public universities) and honestly, it is the most freedom anyone (who knows how to defend it) will ever have in this world.

"'While this could stop A from using the event to announce 'B raped me' after B did rape her or him...

"'...couldn't it also stop C from using the event to announce 'A raped me' after A didn't rape her or him and C just decided to bully A?'

"I suppose. But I imagine that most women who have reason to fear retaliation from their rapists probably would not put a full name on their shirt."

That's my guess too.

In the above hypothetical, I was wondering if any admins were afraid bullies could hijack the event by throwing the full names of non-rapists (possibly including rape survivors) into the mix in order to bully those non-rapists...

There are at least separate issues here that keep getting smashed together, this is a problem as the responses are somewhat contradictory.

1) Should the school sponsor this event and allow women to name full names regardless of conviction?

2) Should the women be naming full names as part of this event?

For 1) ,no, I don't think so. The school should not endorse public accusations, likely of one student against another, without any sort of proof. In that case, it is equally obligated to protect the accuser and the accused as students. The school should certainly provide more rape prevention and support, that can be said of most schools, but supporting a public accusation is a separate issue. Legal obligations are certainly a consideration, but the school also has a moral obligation not to take sides against a potential innocent. As an awareness raising event, the theoretical purpose, the same effect can be achieved with out full names. If it's actually about personal feelings, closure, and being publicly heard, and that naming full names is integral to the event, student can still hold an event without the school's sponsorship.

2) As for the women doing it on their own, go for it. Hopefully there are some safeguards in place, like it being limited to serious group contributors, i.e. not someone showing up and writing "Mickey Mouse" to make a mockery of the event. Sure there's the same potential of abuse, but that's something the group, or the individuals should be responsible for, not the school.

The crux of the problem is the purpose of the event? Is it about catharsis and public shaming, or is it about raising awareness? Both have their place, but need to handled differently.

These arguments all just sound so victim-blaming to me. THese women are the ones who have had their lives turned upside down, but people seem WAY more worried about the rapists. Or, about some woman possibly writing down the name of a non-rapist in order to hurt him. Isn't this just the same as saying women make up false rape allegations? It's the same crap- "women can't be trusted, they make stuff up, they lie about what men do."

Roni-I would imagine the purpose of the event is different for each survivor-some want to raise awareness, some want to just speak out for the first time ever. And I have no problem with publicly shaming rapists.

There is FAR too much concern with the rights of rapists, and far too little concern with the fact that women are being beaten, raped and abused every single day. But let's ignore that, and just talk about these poor men that might get hurt!

I'm just really sick of being told what I can and can't do when it comes to my abuser. Ya know what? He did whatever the fuck he wanted to me, but now he has rights? More rights than me? Fuck that. I'm so sick of rape apologists, and people who are so concerned with protecting possibly innocent men.

"Or, about some woman possibly writing down the name of a non-rapist in order to hurt him. Isn't this just the same as saying women make up false rape allegations?"

Not only women.

When I was in middle school, some of the bullies there said I did a whole bunch of things I didn't do. It's entirely possible that preteens aren't the only jerks who act like that, girls aren't the only targets of action like that, and "she gave the retarded kid blowjobs!!!" isn't the only accusation one can make while doing that...

I am co-chair of my university's Clothesline Project and we have the same guidelines of first names and initials only. We let the women know that before making their shirts and if they feel that writing the full name of their attacker is necessary then that is fine, I'm not going to dictate what they write. However, although we are not responsible for what they write, we are responsible for what we display and we give them notice that full names will not be hung up. Similarly, there was a shirt made that had the word "faggot" on it and although that may have been a part of that person's healing process, we made the decision not to promote one form of oppression while confronting another. Just my experience.

The obvious solution is for the University to require that only the names of persons CONVICTED of rape be posted. That way, there would be no possibility of somebody taking this opportunity to make a false and spurious allegation against an innocent person.

I feel conflicted on this. An earlier posting quoted the administration's statement on it, which did sound like, if you read between the lines, that they did support the idea but wanted to cover themselves legally.

However I agree MORE with the earlier commenter who said "yet another way to tell victims that the men who raped them have more rights than they do. As if they really need a reminder most of the time."

I REALLY like the idea of actually publicly naming rapists. A public forum BECAUSE the court systems, police, and numerous others along the way have failed rape survivors in huge, appauling, institutionalized ways.

I am not so tech/internet savy, but is it possible to create an annonymous website that acts as a forum for rape survivors to name their rapists in full? With possibly a way to search names? Would the creators of such a site be held to similar legal recourses?

There is FAR too much concern with the rights of rapists, and far too little concern with the fact that women are being beaten, raped and abused every single day. But let's ignore that, and just talk about these poor men that might get hurt!

I'm just really sick of being told what I can and can't do when it comes to my abuser. Ya know what? He did whatever the fuck he wanted to me, but now he has rights? More rights than me? Fuck that. I'm so sick of rape apologists, and people who are so concerned with protecting possibly innocent men.

I'm very sorry that it seems like people who support the university's decision - or at least understand it - are rape apologists, and I understand why you'd feel that way. But this isn't a matter of protecting rapists to me.

It IS a matter of morality to uphold a system of justice regardless of how horrible the crime is. As a matter of principal, I believe that people should be free to practice free speech AND be legally protected from harmful speech. Legally this is also the case. It is not cowardly to uphold the law, especially a good one.

However, I would have no problem having an "alleged" rapist's name put up, in full, with an indicator that it is an accusation, not a statement of what the law recognizes to be true.

Jessi- that's an interesting way to think about it- what you said in the last paragraph. Is there a way that women can name their rapist/abuser while being clear that there is no legal stuff going on?

It just feels like when we talk about protecting people's rights and reputations, it's always about protecting the men, never about the women.

Marissa,
I agree with public shaming of rapists. And you are so right-it's important to have a public forum, because of how the "justice" system fails women constantly. We are just supposed to go on and uphold the system, even when it disregards us at every turn? I don't think so.

I know that there have been different websites set up for victims/survivors, to name their abuser, but I think they end up getting taken down, for the same reasons. I always wished that there was a big online database where we could post names and experiences. I would love to connect with other people abused by my grandfather, or raped by the same assholes in college that I was. I think this would be an amazing thing for women-which is why you won't really see it online. Way too much power! And ya know, we women just LOVE to falsely accuse and mess people's lives up.

Can ya tell I'm pissed off today?

As an active feminist on a college campus, I have witness how reporting rape to the campus authorities generally transpires. A girl is sexually assaulted, generally under the influence of alcohol, presses charges which are dismissed (in my two years 100% of the cases have been dropped). Once the perpetrator is supposedly proven "innocent", the girl is ALWAYS labeled as a lying slut who is trying to blame men for her own problems. So ultimately, at Rice, it is psychologically SAFER to not come forward legally as a victim of rape - because ultimately your protest will ONLY serve to make things worst when your charges are dropped. In my experience, the subversive act of coming forward without attempting to navigate our failed legal system is ultimately a more successful way to change people's minds. I was having a conversation with my boyfriend the other day and he said "They really need to work harder to convict men of rape - white men have absolutely nothing to fear so long as they don't violently rape anyone, they KNOW there will be no serious legal consequences for their actions". This is the sad and unfortunate truth on college campuses across the United States. Buying into a legal system that is failing women at ever increasing rates (I think its disgusting that a judge can ban the use of the word rape WITHOUT informing the jury of this decision; I think its even more disgusting that this woman's appeal to a higher court was denied because she "failed to prove that he should intervene"). We aren't going to change this dysfunctional justice system as victims of its dysfunction. Women need to take the power that the justice system have robbed them of and take it into their own hands - by letting men know that there WILL be consequences for their actions.

Student Athletes who gang raped a girl unfairly judged
Men Victims of False Accusations at Rice

Yay bubblex! Exactly!

I understand the explosive nature of this particular topic, but some of the comments here seem to really miss the point that this is an issue about potential liability for libel/defamation, NOT rape.

I don't for one second believe an event like this would draw a bunch of women writing the names of men who DIDN'T rape them just for kicks, or to smear a jerk, or whatever. I believe most young women understand the seriousness of the topic enough to respond seriously, and that if your name ends up on one of those T-shirts, you probably ARE a rapist. But:

If the university sponsors a forum where students are libeling others, the university becomes liable. Saying someone committed a crime, whether it's murder, rape or robbery, can be proven as defamatory or libelous very easily in the absence of a criminal conviction. In a case like that, the person who made the statement is under the burden of proving that the statement they made is true, and even then, truth is not necessarily a complete defense. This is not a value judgment, and it is CERTAINLY not a statement on the veracity of rape accusers; it is simply how our legal system works.

As one commenter already noted, this is *precisely* why you will NEVER see the phrase "John Smith killed/raped/attacked Jane Smith" in the newspaper without some version of "allegedly" or "police said" attached to it. We spend a lot of time at my job making sure that reports on crime follow a very specific set of rules, because a failure to follow those rules opens up the company to a potential million-dollar verdict.

Buggle--

I won't for one minute attempt to downplay the terrible abuse you were subjected to. And I can't speak to the therapeutic value of events like this for those who have been abused.

But I don't think the university recognizing an obvious and potentially massive liability amounts to being "rape apologists."

I don't think the others on this board who recognize that legal reality, without offering judgment on its validity, are rape apologists either. I know I'm not.

The fact is, if Student A puts up a sign saying that Student B raped her, and Student B was not convicted of that rape and decides to sue, it's a fairly open-and-shut case that Student B would likely win. The potential liability to the university would be in the millions of dollars. Now multiply that by however many students are named on those T-shirts/signs.

Should universities be doing a whole lot more to prevent rape and support rape victims? Hell yes. Should they sponsor an event that could drain their coffers of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in order to do that? Probably not.

"I know that there have been different websites set up for victims/survivors, to name their abuser, but I think they end up getting taken down, for the same reasons."

Buggle,
That is some MESSED UP SHIT! Alternative means for survivors to have SOME recourse and even those are continuously silenced. I still think setting up an online database where survivors can name their rapists is a good idea. Just as often as they are shut down, we should be putting them right back up. I really wish I knew how to put together such a thing, because I'd be on that like NOW.

I am seriously so pissed off about how this new angle of seeking empowerment is being actively shut down, much like the vast majority of those rape cases that are reported are shut down from even going to trial... Blech..

sncreducer, I understand everything that you're saying here. I really do. And I also agree with a fair amount of what you say. Where we differ is here:

In a case like that, the person who made the statement is under the burden of proving that the statement they made is true, and even then, truth is not necessarily a complete defense. This is not a value judgment, and it is CERTAINLY not a statement on the veracity of rape accusers; it is simply how our legal system works.

Firstly, people accuse others of committing crimes all the time without facing a libel suit. You can see it any day of the week just by flipping on the news or reading an article. How is a family member of a murder victim saying "I know that X killed my daughter" outside of court any different from a woman saying "X raped me?"

And secondly, the idea that rape victims lose these cases is a value judgment. If it's "just how our legal system works," then the legal system has been established on this judgment. But it's still a judgment, and it's still calling victims liars, and it's still ludicrous that such an accusation can can result in lawsuits and that those lawsuits are regularly won.

Hmm, Marissa-maybe you will inspire me to set one up. I just don't know how to do websites and stuff, and I'll probably get sued. Hah. Maybe I can do one on Livejournal. It really pisses me off that victims are silenced at every turn!

Sncreducer-the point is-this IS about rape. It's supposed to be about women healing from rape. But of course, the attention has to be taken off of that and put on the "real victims"- the non-rapists that could be named! Or worse, the University!

Considering that many of these women were probably raped by another student at that university, I say the uni has a real responsibility to do something here, and not just cover their own asses.

I mean-couldnt' there be a compromise? Like, if you don't put the full names on the t-shirts, you can give us the full names and we will conduct a serious investigation into the "alleged" rape, and involve the police. If the woman wants it. But no-there are no offers of help from the University. Just a lot of ass-covering-for what really just comes down to money.

So, once again, money is more important than women's lives. Sigh.

And yes, I believe that all universities SHOULD spend millions of dollars making sure that 1/2 of their student population is not getting raped and abused. But they don't care.

I organized The Clothesline Project at my school, and in fact made a shirt for myself. So I have some perspective as to what this event is like for a campus and for survivors, especially at a small school like mine.

First of all, I think people upthread who are saying "OMG if you can't put anyone's name then the entire point is defeated!" are being ridiculous. Making a t-shirt, just the act of making it, regardless of what you say on it is an incredibly empowering act.

For us, we requested that no names be included on the shirt. Of the 100 shirts we got in total, both this year and last, we've only had two shirts that called anyone out. One named a specific frat where the survivor was raped, and the other said Fuck You to a faculty member who seemed to indicate that a scantily-dressed student who was studying abroad could have 'prevented' her rape. None put the full name of their rapist. I don't know what we would have done if someone HAD put the full name of their rapist on the shirt. It would've been a really difficult decision whether or not to hang it.

"I mean-couldnt' there be a compromise? Like, if you don't put the full names on the t-shirts, you can give us the full names and we will conduct a serious investigation into the 'alleged' rape, and involve the police. If the woman wants it. But no-there are no offers of help from the University. Just a lot of ass-covering-for what really just comes down to money."

Exactly. Another compromise could be "you run the event without our logo, and say whatever you want in it."

"That is some MESSED UP SHIT! Alternative means for survivors to have SOME recourse and even those are continuously silenced. I still think setting up an online database where survivors can name their rapists is a good idea. Just as often as they are shut down, we should be putting them right back up. I really wish I knew how to put together such a thing, because I'd be on that like NOW."

For what it's worth, TheGORB is still up:

http://www.thegorb.com/

You can only rate someone and add comments about him or her if you have that person's email address, though.

"Sncreducer-the point is-this IS about rape. It's supposed to be about women healing from rape. But of course, the attention has to be taken off of that and put on the 'real victims'- the non-rapists that could be named!"

Now I'm wondering if anyone's been both. For example, if woman or girl A was raped by relative B and then years later informally accused of rape by her ex-boyfriend C who thinks "she's making me pay child support for our baby, that's raping me in the wallet!!!"...

"And yes, I believe that all universities SHOULD spend millions of dollars making sure that 1/2 of their student population is not getting raped and abused."

Right on. Campus police should not be a get-out-of-jail-free card!

I just wanted to comment on the whole libeling people thing. I'm not a lawyer but I'm fairly certain that a woman can come out & say "Joe Blow" raped me & not be liable for libel just because she can't prove it. That's basically the scenario in all of these thousands of criminal cases that are dismissed right?

I think the school's liability is different. So they hang these shirts up, which are anonymous and then there's an allegation against John Smith with no identified accuser except the school. Then his defamation case against the school is a different scenario entirely.

Anyway, at my corporation of 30,000 people there are 3 people with my name.

Oh yeah & does anyone else see the ad for womansavers.com?

First of all, I think people upthread who are saying "OMG if you can't put anyone's name then the entire point is defeated!" are being ridiculous. Making a t-shirt, just the act of making it, regardless of what you say on it is an incredibly empowering act.

I agree that not all women would want to put a name on their shirts, and that making the shirt without a name can still be an empowering experience.

Let me try again to explain what is pissing me off: In our society, women are raped. It's always "she was raped" and "I was raped." It's never HE RAPED HER. And the latter is what actually happens. Women don't "get" raped all on their own. It is done to them. The language of "she was raped" is harmful because she is the only subject in that sentence. There's no one else in that sentence to blame. And there should be, because there always is someone to blame for a rape: the rapist.

This is one of the reasons why I feel that naming is very powerful. So many women are made to feel like they are somehow responsible for their rape. Naming allows her to put the blame where it actually belongs, it allows the burden of blame that she has been placing on herself to be lifted.

This is a problem, I think, with The Clothesline Project, though I otherwise think that it is a great and worth idea. What you see are a bunch of women who have been victimized, being brave enough to stand up and admit that they have been raped. And that's great. But yet again, we are only seeing the victims. These aren't a bunch of women who have been raped; men have raped these women. And I think that The Clothesline Project should reflect that as best it can by not being afraid to talk about the actual rapists.

And I truly do believe that what all of this libel crap is about-- and this includes the actual laws, not only those supporting them-- it's yet another way to silence women and tell them that it's okay to be a victim, as long as you still accept part of the blame. Society does not like to hear that "men rape women." Some don't like it because they fail to grasp that this truthful statement in no way says that all men rape women. And others don't like it because the moment we recognize who is to blame for the problem, we're going to be expected to get up off our asses and actually do something.

Cara--

I should clarify: I meant that me stating how the system works is not a value judgment. The actual machinations of the system, of course, work entirely on value judgments. But I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a libel system that says a person can't say "Person X killed my mother" or "Person X raped me" without being able to prove it. (This excepts, of course, such statements made in the course of a criminal investigation, which are and should remain exempt from libel/slander.)

Yes, people say "Person X killed my mother" in front of the courthouse all the time without facing legal consequences. But the fact remains that if Person X was not convicted, and chose to pursue a legal claim, the legal burden would be on the accuser to prove that what they said is true. And very few people have the monetary means to mount a successful libel defense.

The real problem, which I think we can agree on, is that the system is weighted against rape victims in the realm of prosecuting rapists. If the system did a better job of investigating rapes and convicting rapists, the issue of libel would be largely insignificant.

I'm sorry, but naming someone anonymously doesn't strike me as "powerful." It strikes me as cowardly. Even if the shirt was displayed, is that really going to deter a rapist? Powerful is going through with the legal proceedings and pressing charges.

I'm sorry, but naming someone anonymously doesn't strike me as "powerful." It strikes me as cowardly.

Fuck. You.

Standing up in court, and saying, "he's the one. He did it." That is an act of power.

"'I'm sorry, but naming someone anonymously doesn't strike me as 'powerful.' It strikes me as cowardly. '

"Fuck. You."

Indeed.

Ever noticed how some people see no middle ground between staying totally silent and telling everything to everyone? Likewise the double standard, in which concealing yourself is cowardly and exposing yourself is "asking for it," sucks too.

Standing up in court, and saying, "he's the one. He did it." That is an act of power.

Is that exactly what you did when you were raped? No? Then shut the fuck up, you insensitive bastard.

Alaric, you're an idiot. A man rapes a woman, and due to the incredibly misogynist culture in which she finds herself, she doesn't tell anybody. She blames herself to a greater and lesser degree. Perhaps it's somebody she knows, and she sees that over the years, nothing bad happens to him. Meanwhile, she bottles up and turns inward her feelings of anger, experiences herself as being worthless, fears that if she tells anybody what has happened to her they'll think less of her. Through support and therapy and inner strength, she finds it in herself to stand up at a speak-out or to create a document finally telling what this man did to her and speaking his name, and you call that cowardly?

Yes. Fuck you.

I live in Maryland and Maryland taxpayers pay for this university. Do I want the University to lose its insurance coverage or to have to go to the General Assembly for a supplemental budget item in tight times because it made itself a joint tortfeasor when some Duke-lacrosse-player-sympathizer sues in Prince George's County? Not particularly.

While I would expect a substantial amount of civil disobedience on this (e.g. people spelling names one letter off, giving websites where the names can be found, a off-site place for the names, xerox phantoms, etc.), I am glad that College Park won't be made into a defendant the way Duke University is, as of this very week; it can disavow any "naming" that will occur.

The better approach ideally would be to sue the rapists for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In civil court, the defendants don't get proof beyond a reasonable doubt protection, only preponderance of the evidence. While a civil judgment against a 19 year-old college student is difficult to enforce, bankruptcy does not generally discharge a suit for intentional violence. Getting a lawyer willing to sue a college-age rapist is difficult as there is little money in it, though.

Whether women's legal organizations would like to take this project on, I wouldn't know but it sounds like honorable work to me. If I had a million dollars and REALLY good malpractice coverage, I might start such a anti-rape legal clinic myself.

Look - if the only consequence for rape is that your name gets put on a clothesline shirt, then rapists are going to get away nearly scot-free. People can make the judicial system as sensitive as can be, but it can't work unless victims press charges.

Singout, I'm not saying I'd have the courage to stand up in court like that if I was raped, but I hope so.

Powerful is going through with the legal proceedings and pressing charges.

Right, 'cause that's worked so well for women who've been sexually assaulted.

Really, alaric, you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about, do you?

Alaric:

Reading some of the comments above makes it very clear why public naming is powerful. Part of the harm of the assault is the deprivation from the person of their self autonomy, of their control. Naming the perpetrator is an act of reasserting control over the person's life and I suspect a way of acknowledging that it is the perpetrator who should be ashamed not the person who was assaulted.

Some people who would want to do the naming may have also brought charges, or they may believe they could never reasonably succeed in making the charges stick in a court of law. For some the pain of the event may be such that it takes all their courage just to acknowledge it publically albeit anonymously. This is not cowardice but courage.

Chris, I've actually been to a number of sexual assault and rape trials. My impression is that in many jurisdictions there's been a total revolution in how they handle these cases in the past 10 to 20 years. SANE nurses, victim advocates, sensitivity training for judges and prosecutors, more women involved in every step of the process... I'm not saying that's the case everywhere, though.

Chris, what experience in these matters do you have, to make that kind of statement?

Singout, I'm not saying I'd have the courage to stand up in court like that if I was raped, but I hope so.

So, you have no idea what it's like to be raped -- how the experience leaves you in turmoil, how law enforcement and the justice system will further victimize you, how you are surrounded by messages that it's your own fault -- and yet you're willing to judge rape victims as 'cowardly' who do not behave as you 'hope' you would under the same circumstances?

Again, Fuck You.

Singout, I'm not saying I'd have the courage to stand up in court like that if I was raped, but I hope so.

Well, alaric, until you are in that position (and I sincerely hope that you never are), you really need to shut the fuck up and stop judging the women who are. Would I like to see more women come forward and take their rapists to trial? Yes. But you know how we don't do that? --By calling them cowards. Because calling a rape victim a coward will not only fail to get her on your side, it will also make you look like a really, really big fucking asshole.

Cara, I'm not calling rape victims cowardly. But leveling an anonymous accusation, without following through by calling the police ... maybe cowardly is too strong a word. Call it an act of timidity.

Antinome - but the shirts with the full names never get displayed. And even if they were, not every woman is going to see them.

Alaric,

Being at a rape trial, you really see very little of what goes on for a rape survivor. There are so many numbers of reasons a survivor will not press charges, but I want to elaborate about how the legal system is not AT ALL cut and dry and NOT in the favor of the survivor the majority of the time.

The survivor must first call the police soon after it has happened to get an evidentiary exam. Usually someone that traumatized has been lead to believe the rape was their own fault in the first place given our misogynistic culture and her rapist is probably someone she knows and, with the self blaming, the survivor may not be so apt to press charges.

Then the police officer called is the one to request the survivor get the evidentiary exam, an extraordinarily personal and invasive affair. (I have met some very nice and very professional doctors who do these exams, but I am not sure if every one is so sensitive and well-trained) Despite any small steps towards training legal officials of various types, often officers are appallingly derogatory and victim-blaming. I used to work for a sexual assault crisis line and was constantly horrified by the stories of what police officers and other public officials said to these victims. Not to mention friends and family members often participate in victim blaming because it is what our misogynistic culture promotes.

Now after pressing charges, only a minute portion of these cases are actually brought to trial. Cases are constantly thrown out, sometimes even just because there may be some amount of alcohol involved. And then if it miraculously goes to trial, many survivors describe the process as being as if they were raped a second time. There have been some advances in the legal process, such as a shockingly recent change in the law that actually recognizes that it is, in fact, possible for a husband to rape his wife. Shocking, I know.. But then there are an uncountable number of setbacks, such as the recent case where the survivor could not even use the term rape and name the crime that was perpetrated to her.

Pressing charges may be one act of power out of many acts of power a survivor may chose to take. It horrifies me that Alaric could just be so dismissive, insensitive, and black and white on this issue.

Alaric - considering the fact that unless you were violently raped you have pretty much zero chance of being taken seriously by any legal authority, I don't see how a rape victim would derive any kind of power from having her sexual history, personal character, and bodily integrity scrutinized by authorities who will almost undoubtedly decide she is lying in the end. When they do dismiss her charges, she will be labeled as a liar who is trying to taint the reputation of an honest and innocent man who is truly the victim in this situation in the eyes of society.

"The survivor must first call the police soon after it has happened to get an evidentiary exam. Usually someone that traumatized has been lead to believe the rape was their own fault in the first place given our misogynistic culture and her rapist is probably someone she knows and, with the self blaming, the survivor may not be so apt to press charges."

Also, a lot of female rape survivors were girls when they were attacked. I wish I could remember enough keywords about the article to find it, but one source I read said that in the U.S. approx. 1/3 of rapes of female victims happen to girls age 0-10, 1/3 to girls age 11-17, and 1/3 to women.

So, even if the survivor was so apt to press charges so promptly, what if she was too young to do that on her own? Her parents may not have let her use the phone or given her a ride to the police station...

"Pressing charges may be one act of power out of many acts of power a survivor may chose to take."

Exactly.

considering the fact that unless you were violently raped you have pretty much zero chance of being taken seriously by any legal authority

That's really not true. It might have been true once, but it's not true any more. At least, it's not true anymore everywhere. Plenty of cases don't involve violence, and plenty don't involve recent allegations.

Hey, in Providence, R.I., there was a recent rape case brought against a man based on "represssed memory" allegations by a 48-year-old woman who claimed she was raped 32 years ago.

Have you read Linda Fairstein's book, "Sexual Violence"? The process has really been made much more "user-friendly" and I think you're discouraging women from pressing charges by failing to recognize the real gains that have been made in the past two decades.

When the campus police officer in charge of investigating sexual assault at your university defines "not consenting" as being physically dominated while saying no and fighting back, how do you think a woman who was not physically dominated, did not or could not fight back or speak would fare in pressing charges? Given that ALL sexual assault claims investigated by the campus police have been dropped over the last two years for "lack of evidence" or because the investigators concluded that a sexual assault did not occur - I would say that what I said is absolutely true.

Bubblex - and how many cases are those? If police investigated and determined that a sexual assault didn't occur, how can you say what that means?

I was curious about Marissa's allegation that only a "minute" percentage of cases reported to police are actually brought to trial. Actually according to the DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics fully 27% of sexual assault complaints to police result in an arrest. ( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf )

That may seem low, but keep in mind that 1 in 4 reports are stranger cases, where police may not be able to identify an assailant. In 7% of cases the complaintant eventually declines to cooperate and prosecution is on declined for lack of evidence in 6% of cases. In a small number of cases the assailant is found to be dead, so no arrest is possible. So basically the police are four times more likely to make an arrest than dismiss the complaint for lack of evidence. And the overall clearance rate of 40% for sexual assault compares to a 25% to robbery and 12% for motor vehicle theft.

Maryland made the right decision. If these women want to make these accusations without university backing that's fine, and I would certainly encourage them to do so. However, Maryland isn't in the position to judge each and every one of these t-shirts. They would be facing hundreds of lawsuits in a day or less, I'm all for calling a rapist a rapist, but this is not some magical 100% tool that is infallible. All it takes is one angry ex-girlfriend, one prankster, one person who actually wasn't the victim of rape, and this not only hurts the university, but the entire cause of rape-prevention.

After the Duke lacrosse scandal, people are becoming more and more suspicious about rape claims, including on university campuses. All it would take is another one or two false claims and it could be an enormous setback. Remember, if falsely accusing three guys at Duke can do this much damage, what could four guys at Maryland do? I'm not saying anyone should back off, but there are good and bad ways of doing something like this. This is a bad way because it doesn't test for the veracity of claims.

Look at it like this: would you lend all of your support to a statement signed by many people, each of whom claiming a specific person committed a crime against them? I wouldn't. I would want to go over it case-by-case. Why should we expect Maryland to be different? Not to mention the fact that it's a huge school, and the potential for people with the same name as those accused also have a viable claim at defamation, and this is just something Maryland wants to avoid, and with good reason.

In the end, this activity seems like it is PERFECTLY suited towards a private gathering with private sponsorship. I'd certainly donate money to help them pull this off as a non-university event, but Maryland made the right call. It's not their job to decide which of these accusations is legit or not.

alaric-

I think we need to keep in mind that encouraging women to report rapes is actually NOT the most important concern when it comes to helping them. The top concern to give rape survivors support so that they can be emotionally stable. Encourage them to seek medical attention if they were drugged or badly beaten and so they can be examined in case they have contracted STDs. Remind them that the situation was out of their control. Remind them that they aren't weak or stupid. Above all, repeatedly remind them that this wasn't their fault. Support is always the #1 concern.

On another note, I'm surprised that you would even accuse anyone here of "discouraging" women from reporting. No, no, no... I think you have it kind of backwards. Lawyers, judges, police officers, classmates, teachers, campus security, doctors, sometimes even friends and family, and our CULTURE in general... THAT'S who discourages women from reporting rapes. Also, IMO, people like you, who go so far as labeling some victims as "cowards", would also be to blame for that.

Victims are more likely to report their assaults if they are confident and feel they have the power to bring their rapist to justice. By refering to him/her as "cowardly", you would only be adding insult to injury. If anything, it would only lead to more shame and self-blaming.

And keep in mind that when it comes to those 1 in 4 cases involving strangers, sometimes the police don't identify assailants as a result of lazy investigating and because they just DON'T GIVE A FUCK sometimes. Yes, there are authority figures who not only don't help victims, but sometimes go as far as to harrass them. Unfortunately, we can't exactly show statistics on how many authority figures are like that.

And according to your statistics, about 62% of reported rape cases involve an attacker who new the victim, contains evidence against the attacker, and the victim(who is ALIVE) agrees to comply. Out of these 62%, only 27% are arrested? Is that right? And you say "that might SEEM low". No, it IS low. It's pretty fucking pathetic.

And according to your statistics, about 62% of reported rape cases involve an attacker who new the victim, contains evidence against the attacker, and the victim(who is ALIVE) agrees to comply. Out of these 62%, only 27% are arrested? Is that right?

No, of course it's not right. The 27% arrested figure refers to the overall rapes reported to law enforcement, not the subset cases where the assailant was known to the victim. As the report says, "Incidents with offenders who were known to the victim were substantially more likely to be cleared than those in which the offender was a stranger to the victim."

You're obviously trying to make things out to be worse than they are, and yes that does discourage women from filing reports.

To me this doesn't seem to be about rapists rights or even the rights of innocent non-rapists. It's purely that a bankrupt university does no-one any good. As someone said, any unreported or unsuccessfully reported rape is usually legally unprovable. I would love to see this event held independently though.

Not prosecuting a case is by no means the same thing as "clearing" the perpetrator. Police do not clear people, rather they drop cases.
When you say,
"Incidents with offenders who were known to the victim were substantially more likely to be cleared than those in which the offender was a stranger to the victim."
what you are really saying is that if the victim knows the offender, she is less likely to be believed.

Jane - sorry if that quote was unclear. "Clearing" in this context refers to clearing cases, not clearing people. A complaint would be considered "cleared" by law enforcement they made an arrest by what the FBI calls "exceptional means." I'll give you the full quote.

The NIBRS data indicate that an arrest was made in 27% of all sexual assault victimizations. There were only minor offense-related differences in arrest probabilities: forcible rape (25%) [forcible to distinguish from statutory rape], forcible sodomy (30%), sexual assault with an object (28%), and forcible fondling (27%). Crimes were also cleared by means other than arrest, or what the FBI has labeled clearances by exceptional means. More specifically, in 7% of sexual assault victimizations the victim refused to cooperate. Prosecution was declined in 6% of sexual assaults, implying that there was insufficient evidence to charge or convict the offender. In a small proportion of cases, the offender had died, making arrest impossible. Overall, in the NIBRS sample, 42% of all sexual assaults were cleared by law enforcement through arrest or by exceptional means.

ALARIC: "And the overall clearance rate of 40% for sexual assault compares to a 25% to robbery and 12% for motor vehicle theft."

But that isn't really the right comparison. In the vast majority of cases, the person who was sexually assaulted knows the perpetrator. In robbery and theft, you typically don't know who the perpetrator is, so of course the clearance rates will be lower.

The right comparison would be the clearance rates when there is a serious assault and the person who was assaulted knows the perpetrator.

Second, I'm guessing that the reporting rates for sexual assault are far lower than the reporting rates for motor vehicle thefts. People aren't going to go through hell if they report their vehicle is stolen. They may go through hell if they report a sexual assault.

I *think* what people are saying is that if that processes was less hellish for women and there was greater confidence that the perpetrator would be found guilty, more women would come forward.

Cara, I'm not calling rape victims cowardly.

You did. And it was a truly awful thing to say. If it's not what you meant, please apologize.

The bizarre thing is how the anti-shirt argument is being reframed: "You mean that we should prefer the rights of rapists over victims?"

Well, no. If anyone who is a rapist gets their name put up there, then even if they sue, truth is an ultimate defense.

The argument is made on behalf of people who might get on shirts--or have a name similar to someone else on a shirt--who AREN'T rapists. Which is most people.

Also, a lot of folks seem pretty willing to assume that the women involved in this are working on some sort of higher standard. I mean, they're only human, right? They have human foibles, human error, and human motivations just like everyone else. So even if the VAST majority of them are well meaning and accurate, some of them won't be. Absent a court system it seems a bit risky.

Singout, what I said was that leveling an anonymous accusation was "cowardly." I should have clarified that I only meant people who didn't take any other action, like calling the police. But I think perhaps that word is too strong and I should have used the word, "timid."

UCLA - "I *think* what people are saying is that if that processes was less hellish for women and there was greater confidence that the perpetrator would be found guilty, more women would come forward."

Well, what I am saying is that the process has been made less hellish for women, but there really hasn't been much recognition of that outside of the law enforcement community. People like Marissa tell woman that the only change in the system was the elimination of the marital exemption for rape, and call that a "recent" reform. (It wasn't, unless you think the '80s were recent). The net effect is to discourage women from pressing charges, which ends up encouraging rape.

I'm not saying the system is perfect or couldn't be made better. But it is nothing like it was 20 years ago. I could go into all the reforms for you, if you'd like.

"The argument is made on behalf of people who might get on shirts--or have a name similar to someone else on a shirt--who AREN'T rapists. Which is most people."

For one example, if a BMOC wants to bully a non-rapist 90-pound-weakling classmate, figures "even his friends will dump him if they think he raped a girl," and puts his classmate's name into the public list of rapists.

OTOH, the Clothesline Project isn't totally anonymous, right? In the example above, it might be harder for the bully to put his target's name in the display if he had to face someone like fatsweatybetty, swatfeminist, etc. instead of having *nobody* know who put up which shirt...

Bad phrasing on my part. When I said this:
"...who AREN'T rapists. Which is most people."

I meant that most people, of course, aren't rapists. I have little doubt that most people ON THE SHIRTS are actually rapists. It's an important distinction; sorry if it was confusing.

Singout, what I said was that leveling an anonymous accusation was "cowardly." I should have clarified that I only meant people who didn't take any other action, like calling the police. But I think perhaps that word is too strong and I should have used the word, "timid."

So, you're not going to apologize?

I'm done.

Mina, what if the person setting up the man is not a "BMOC", but rather a woman? This isn't just something that can be abused by men. A scorned ex-girlfriend could do the same thing, and probably with much less scrutiny than your hypothetical "BMOC". In your example this type of fakery would be relatively easy to stop, but not every type is quite so simple. In the end the university's not capable of supporting every claim made on the t-shirts, so they have to shut it down, or at least force it to go private.

"Mina, what if the person setting up the man is not a 'BMOC', but rather a woman? This isn't just something that can be abused by men."

That's why I said "for one example." Of course isn't just something that can be abused by men, *and* it isn't just something that can be abused by women.

"I'm not saying the system is perfect or couldn't be made better. But it is nothing like it was 20 years ago. I could go into all the reforms for you, if you'd like."

Not every rape survivor at the same school was raped recently in the jurisdiction of a sympathetic court. Maybe one of the rape survivors putting up a shirt is a faculty member who was raped 30 years ago (and before these reforms), maybe another one is an international student who was raped abroad (and where these reforms don't apply), etc.

Oh god. Why must every conversation of rape turn into a "we must protect men against lying women" argument?

I'm willing to bet that none of the names on the shirt are done just out of spite. That they're all genuine.

Rape is an extremely sensitive and shameful topic for both the perpetrator and the victim, and I don't know when most people in our culture are going to be able to rap their heads around that.

I know a girl who had to go through two years of college while her rapist was on the fucking Honor Board of the school. Even if she's tried accusing him and gone through the system, his friends would have been weighing in on the case. So she wathed him graduate with honors, being on the Honor Board. And after he left the school she came out of her shell and got really active in the woman's sexual assault awareness group and everything.

Who knows who else that guy raped though? Guys who rape once usually rape multiple times. I imagine most women who make a t-shirt would be too afraid to name their rapist. But if some choose to, I think we should let them. They're putting themselves at risk as much as anyone, because if the guys' friends or the guy sees it and the guy denies it, they're going to do their best to figure out who made that shirt and probably make her life hell.

(But maybe she will have succeeded in helping out some other women -either in helping them feel braver to admit they were raped by someone they know or warning them away from that particular guy before he rapes again)

I agree that 99.99% of the names written on shirts are genuine. And for the sake of argument, let's say that every single one is the name of a woman's rapist.

Now let's consider that the Clothesline Project is being displayed on a college campus where most of the women making the shirts were likely raped by men attending the same university. Say a woman is raped by another student and for whatever (entirely valid) reason, she decides not to file a report, press charges, etc. However, she does want to make a shirt with her attacker's full name as a part of the healing process.

Now, her rapist hears through the grapevine that his name is written on a shirt alleging that he raped a woman at X frat party. At this point, a few things are possible. One, he may not take any action, however I think that would be unlikely because even though he is a rapist he would not want to be publicly labeled as one. Two, he may remember which woman he attacked and then seek her out, something the survivor would probably rather avoid.

But probably most likely, he will try to "clear his name," despite the fact that he committed a crime, because he was not convicted of anything. He could then take legal action against the University and the Project, portraying himself as an innocent man being slandered by a woman scorned, promoting the myth of that women either maliciously or mistakenly "cry rape." So now, either the woman will have to come forward when she hadn't wanted to press charges in the first place, or he will be unopposed in his assertion that he never raped anyone. And then in all likelihood, he will get a settlement from the university and the Project may gain an undeserved reputation of slandering innocent men and be disallowed from holding future displays on campus.

I don't give a shit about protecting rapists, however I do not want them to benefit financially or otherwise from their crimes by portraying themselves as victims and exploiting the survivors' healing process. I think that by suggesting that women only use first names or initials, most of this can be avoided by still allowing women to use the power of naming (albeit possibly to a somewhat lesser degree due to the restrictions).

I also just want to clear up, before anyone gets the wrong idea, I know that false accusations of rape, particularly with something like the Clothesline, don't really happen, especially not the way some people would have us believe, but the 99.99% leaves room for that one person out of the countless others. The problem is that if even one single person sees this as an opportunity for personal gain, it creates a huge problem for the college and the Project and the women as well. Some idiot guy could write a name as a prank or a man could even write his own name then sue later because the shirts are often made anonymously.

The 27% arrested figure refers to the overall rapes reported to law enforcement

Okay, maybe I worded myself wrong, but that's exactly what a meant. 27% of all reported rapes resulting in arrest, no matter how you see it, is terrifying low.

Also, this 27% only represents the assailants that are ARRESTED. It does not represent the number of sexual assault offenders who have been convicted and brought to justice. It's not uncommon for police to make an arrest of an assailant who is brought to court only to be found not guilty, even if they are guilty of the crime.

I'm not interested in making rape cases out to be worse than they are. My only desire is to be upfront and honest about what goes on with rape investigations.

tofutti, yes, the 27% figure only represents arrests, not convictions. But keep in mind that it's 27% of the total universe of sexual assault complaints reported to law enforcement, including cases where:

- it was a stranger rape and a suspect couldn't be identified;
- the complainant later decided not to press charges (about 7% of cases);
- it was a false report;
- the assailant was dead; and
- juvenile cases involving very young offenders where police decide pressing charges isn't warranted because of the offender's age (e.g., forcible fondling involving two 6-year-olds).

When you exclude those cases, the percentage of arrests would be higher. How much higher, unfortunately, I can't tell you.

alaric, when given your statistics and excluding those cases, the percentage of arrests is roughly around 45%. That's less than half and, once again, only represents arrests, not convictions.

I'm not quite sure how you came up with that figure, but it sounds about right. Like I said, I am not arguing that the system is perfect, could not use further improvement, or easy for complaintants.

But I have been previously friendly with a number of police, prosecutors and victim advocates and my impression is that they were all dedicated, professional people who did their best; sometimes getting emotionally wrapped up in cases and really taking the outcome seriously. For prosecutors, esp., people really take jobs like that because they want to make a difference, and there are increasingly female lawyers in those roles. (Not that men can't be sensitive and do a good job).

I'm sure there are people out there in authority who don't "give a f-ck" as you say, but that wasn't my experience.

Thoughts:

Events of this type are both powerful and important. Too often when women come forward as rape victims, college culture blames them for damaging the reputation of their rapists. Although not a popular view on this site, I have often argued that both men and women are responsible for changing rape culture. Events like this send a clear message that rape and rapists are not to be tolerated, and are consequently one of the best things women can do to prevent rape.

Universities, especially public ones are often on shaky legal ground in cases like this, but there's an easy, simple solution. As I see it, this is an example of free speech and free assembly, something that public universities absolutely cannot interfere with. If the university endorses the event, they are legally at risk, but endorsing and allowing are two different things. As an act of free expression, universities must not interfere with events such as these. There is no need to endorse it, and they don't need to make any apologies for upholding student's constitutional rights.

The free speech issue is tricky. At private universities, expression which "creates a hostile environment" is often considered "harassment." Unfortunately, there are rarely protections for free speech. Harassment sounds bad, but it might not mean what you think. Consider that rape awareness events such as these "create a hostile environment" for the rapists, and would be considered harassment under such policies. Sounds ridiculous, and it is, but I wouldn't put it past private universities trying to protect their image (think Eastern Michigan).

Even though it might mean putting up with poorly drawn, tasteless comic strips from time to time, it's situations like this that make explicit protections for free expression an absolute necessity on college campuses.

-Your Faithful Tool of the Patriarchy

"I'm willing to bet that none of the names on the shirt are done just out of spite. That they're all genuine."

I'm willing to bet that's almost always true for this type of event, too. But there are exceptions to anything. As much as we need to provide a forum to support the victims, we do our cause a grave disservice if we toss our intellects out the window and automatically assume that when it comes to rape, as opposed to every other imaginable subject that arises in the course of human events, one gender is incapable of lying while the other is composed of pathological liars. The last thing rape victims don't need is another well-publicized hoax like the case whose name we dare not mention here again. These incidents are rare, and I would hate to see the mainstream media characterize the next one as indicative of a "trend" like they did with the rare situation involving female high school teachers molesting boys.

Well speaking purely /hypothetically/ I would rather the school get sued by a rapist for allowing slander and have all the girls on the campus be wary enough of the rapist that he never rapees (or gets laid), or at least less than he would otherwise, then have his name never be mentioned in any way, shape, or form, and have more girls become his victims... Another thing is, if a guy is accused, denies it, and sues for slander, if the case is widely publicized other girls might be brave enough to come forward and say that he raped them. Maybe... I know cases with multiple victims are more likely to result in convictions...

I don't really know for sure, but it's a theory...

"when it comes to rape, as opposed to every other imaginable subject that arises in the course of human events, one gender is incapable of lying while the other is composed of pathological liars."

It's all a question of motivation. There really is no positive motivation for lying about rape as a victim. The girl/woman doesn't really get anything out of it -when women are open to having been raped, it generally makes guys wary of her unless they already know her well, and it makes a lot of men and women look at her differently. If you just want to get back at a guy, there are so many simpler ways to do it. Maybe women have lied about rape, but I know a lot of women who have been raped, and none who have lied about it.

If these were men putting up t-shirts, would you be concerned about a man lying about having been raped by another man?

"The last thing rape victims don't need is another well-publicized hoax like the case whose name we dare not mention here again"

Actually I've noticed quite a few people here mentioning it -simply because there's no shame in it. Because just because she named the wrong perpetrators and was a little messed up in the head doesn't mean she wasn't raped that night -and a lot of us think she was.

The media can tell all kinds of crazy stories and do all kinds of spinning of the facts. I'm not going to adjust my activism on the basis of how I think the media will respond to it (which IMO is largely unpredictable), especially not on activities like the clothesline which like a speak out are intended to benefit survivors as much as anyone(or moreso)...

I hear all these arguments about how: well if you do this sort of activism, or support these people, you'll make it harder for rape victims. To all that I say B.S. It's already hard for rape victims. Sitting on our tushes and hoping the law enforcement and legal system will take care of it isn't doing more, our legal system just isn't designed to handle sexual assault cases. It's a pretty basic principle with activism that you are going to encounter various obstacles and certain events that make you look bad in the press, but that doesn't mean that you're not overall making progress -it certainly doesn't mean that you throw your hands in the air and say "damn I guess we don't know what we're doing, we should never name names or defend a woman who says she was raped at a frat house again until we let the case go through the legal system" That's just nuts; that's certainly not helping anyone.

Also speaking purely hypothetically (because I know most people making t-shirts didn't include names, and of those who /did/ I do not know if the names were of other people on campus) /but/ I would rather have 1000 girls name names, and have hundreds of guys have a harder time finding new victims and 1 guy get falsely accused and have to sue, deal with all of his friends on the issue, etc., then have hundreds of rapists not have their names come up anywhere and thus wind up raping several girls apiece while they were on campus (I guess my hypothetical campus is pretty big)

Ninapendamaishi, I see what you're saying -- from a balancing perspective, the greater good is preventing rape. And how about turning the tables on the system: If a woman has been raped (and of course she knows if she really was raped -- I'm not talking about some unbalanced woman as in the lacrosse case), have her name the perp and then if he wants to sue her for libel, HE has the intitial burden of proof, and she can assert the privilege of truth. (Chances are, he won't sue her because -- he really DID rape her, and this would only underscore that point.)

Nina, I don't think you get that a woman or man can put up one of these t-shirts ANONYMOUSLY. The positive motivation for lying about rape anonymously is the destruction of someone's reputation. For instance, a guy beat you out for a spot on the basketball team, so you destroy him. Or, your boyfriend of several years cheats on you, and you want to hurt him as badly as possible. Humans do terrible things for the sake of revenge, and this provides a potential outlet for that. The fact is, many of these shirts are right, but I can't say with any degree of certainty that they're all true. Also, what about a name like John Smith, or Jack Jones? Reputations of the wrong people can be destroyed.

The thing is, I agree with your hypothetical, but in the end we can't know how correct you are. At what point would you say no, it's too many people being libeled? And destroying someone's life to stop a crime that can do the same thing is really just robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's not about what you'd rather do, but rather what's the right thing to do. Would you rather execute a bunch of death-row inmates because it's likely they're guilty? And those guys at least got a trial with evidence. The only evidence here is one person's word. I'd love for this type of thing to not be exploited by the weak, the deluded, and the just plain wrong, but it can be, and possibly will be.

There really is no positive motivation for lying about rape as a victim.

Well..... people are crazy sometimes. I remember days after Sept. 11, a woman came forward to say she was getting text messages from her husband, buried in the pile. Authorities expended a tremendous amount of energy trying to rescue him, but of course he didn't exist. (
http://www.manhattanda.org/whatsnew/press/2001-09-20.htm ... police officers who testified about about the hoax to a grand jury ended up breaking down in tears)

There are just some disturbed people out there who just enjoy attention and sympathy, I think. Look at all the guys who fabricate stories of being war heroes.

In college, a friend of mine actually wanted to press charges through the college judicial system against a former lover who was going around telling people that he had sexually assaulted her. They had had a bitter breakup. He reluctantly agreed to let the matter drop after she agreed to stop telling people that. (And no, before anyone says it, I don't know what really happened, any more than Ninapendamaishi knows about the women she chooses to believe).

A huge part of the problem though is one that I don't think anyone has even mentioned: names aren't unique.

I know there are at least two other people in the US with my name, because I've met one, and the other has some kind of association with my company that means her name is in our corporate directory. And I've got a morderately unusual name.

What happens to John Smith when a girl who was raped by John Smith hangs up a shirt with his name on it?

Because of the way communities work, everyone is going to assume that the local John Smith is the one being accused. He's completely innocent, but has no way to prove it, because he has no way to find the accuser and ask her to say "no, not this John Smith, the one I went to high school with".

I'm all for punishing rapists, but I'm very much against fragging innocents in the process.

Exactly, Jannia. I'm lucky enough to have a completely unique name, in that not another person on the planet has it, but most people aren't quite so lucky. In fact, there are plenty of duplicate names on college campuses alone, and when you factor in a bunch of high schools, home towns, etc., the sample group for names becomes enormous. Punish rapists, but don't punish people who happen to share the name of rapists.

"...I would rather have 1000 girls name names, and have hundreds of guys have a harder time finding new victims and 1 guy get falsely accused and have to sue, deal with all of his friends on the issue, etc., then have hundreds of rapists not have their names come up anywhere and thus wind up raping several girls apiece while they were on campus..."

Ninapendamaishi,

The rationale in your quoted statement above is similar to the logic used by authoritarian regimes of both fascist/monarchical and Communist persuasions to encourage their citizens to harass and persecute those they deem "guilty" of various offenses. One example in recent history was the Chinese Cultural Revolution where Mao Zedong encouraged students down to junior high level to form Red Guard units and go on a witch hunt to persecute teachers and anyone else he deemed were "counter-revolutionaries". If a Red Guard student accused you of being a "counter-revolutionary", you are automatically guilty without any due process and deserved whatever abuse the students and authorities chose to heap upon you. Some members of my own family including a Great-Aunt and her family were victims of that witch hunt and persecution.

While I realize our system is woefully deficient in holding rapists accountable, your contention that you would rather allow one potential innocent suffer if 99% of the guilty are held accountable is not too far removed from the rationale used by authoritarian regimes and its supporters to justify harassment of anyone they deem "unloyal" or "heterodox" for any reason.

"If these were men putting up t-shirts, would you be concerned about a man lying about having been raped by another man?"

I got the impression that some of the people putting up shirts are men. I mean:

"For the past 17 years, students have participated in a rape awareness program where victims and advocates against sexual violence hang T-shirts along a huge clothesline on campus."

sure doesn't seem to reject male victims of sexual violence.

How many of the people who feel a tiny bit uncomfortable about the shirts feel VERY differently about criminal and civil charges? I certainly do.

I don't think there's anything wrong with accusing someone of rape, either criminally or civilly. I think it's a good thing for everyone who was wronged to bring charges, whether or not the charge is ultimately successful.

There will always be both false and incorrect (not the same thing) accusations in ANY system, criminal or otherwise. But that's OK: a small percentage of those accusations isn't enough to justify stopping the system.

OTOH, what makes me more nervous about this is the lack of a final arbiter. An accusation should be followed by, I don't know... some sort of judging. It should be an opportunity for both sides to present their case.