Discussion List for campus-based and allied personnel working to end gender-based violence on campus.

["Lauren Sogor" <>]

Thank you all for the helpful responses to my requests! 
Lauren

E. Lauren Sogor, MPH
Prevention Campaign Specialist 

National Sexual Violence Resource Center 
123 North Enola Drive, Enola, PA 17025 717.909.0710 x118 
877.739.3895 Toll Free 

collaboration | prevention | resources


-----Original Message-----
From: 

[mailto:]
 On Behalf Of

Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:52 PM
To: 

Subject: SAPC Digest, Vol 1289, Issue 3

Send SAPC mailing list submissions to
        


To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://list.mail.virginia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sapc
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        


You can reach the person managing the list at
        


When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of SAPC digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. RE: Artist "rape tunnel" exhibit (Chad Sniffen)
   2. Mandatory Education (Gillian Greensite)
   3. AN OPEN LETTER TO WHOOPI GOLDBERG 
()
   4. mandatory education in California and through Cleary
      (Foubert, John)
   5. Re: mandatory education in California and through Cleary
      (S. Daniel Carter)
   6. Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO WHOOPI GOLDBERG (Michael Domitrz)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:13:57 -0700
From: "Chad Sniffen" 
<>
Subject: RE: Artist "rape tunnel" exhibit
To: "SAPC" 
<>
Message-ID: 
<006601ca411f$db213a60$9163af20$@org>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="US-ASCII"

It seems that, as that update on Gawker suggests, this is a hoax post.
It is
getting quite a lot of play on the internet, however, via various blogs
reposting the gawker story. The reminds me of the women-hunting videos
in
the Nevada dessert that made it internet-big several years ago, and were
also a hoax.

The original post is accessible at:
http://www.artlurker.com/2009/09/the-rape-tunnel-by-sheila-zareno/



-----Original Message-----
From: 

[mailto:]
 On Behalf Of Angela Seguin
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 6:24 AM
To: 

Subject: Artist "rape tunnel" exhibit

Have you all heard anything about this?  Obviously disturbing &
repulsive,
even in the suggestion of such a thing.  This article got on my student
volunteers' radar and they sent it to me.  It wasn't on the Urban
Legends
Reference pages but even in the article they suggest it may not be real.
The actual website where the full article was originally posted is
inaccessible now.

http://gawker.com/5369615/enter-the-rape-tunnel-for-art?skyline=true&s=x

Angela

Angela DiNunzio Seguin
Program Coordinator
S.O.S. (Sexual Offense Support)
Wellspring: Student Wellness Program
University of Delaware
(302) 831-3457
http://www.udel.edu/wellspring
_______________________________________________
SAPC mailing list

https://list.mail.virginia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sapc



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:13:24 -0700
From: Gillian Greensite 
<>
Subject: Mandatory Education
To: 

Message-ID: 
<>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dear colleagues:

I can only speak for California, but yes, Assembly Bill 1088 mandates  
education on rape prevention for all incoming students. This bill was  
passed quite a while ago but has been basically ignored until now.  
The Office of the President recently clarified that it was supposed  
to apply to all ten University of California campuses, as well as  
state and community colleges. Historically, the UC system has been  
able to avoid such legislation by having a clause added to the bills  
that unless the Regents voted to have the bill apply to UC, it  
wouldn't apply. I kid you not. Apparently the Regents did in fact  
support the bill but nobody passed the message down to the campuses.  
Until now and in  the context of the system-wide grant from OVW and a  
relatively new Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs on our campus who  
is the first to say, "it will be done. and Gillian will do it". As a  
result, I am reaching 5,000 new students in groups of 400 with a  
ninety minute program. What a difference, mandatory makes. For the  
past 29 years I've butted against brick walls of disinterest which  
often took the form of personal attacks since as they have said in my  
performance evals, "she won't take no for an answer". It's an  
educator's dream to have every student (with exceptions for  
survivors) including new transfer students having to attend. So far,  
eleven programs in one week with four to go. I'd be happy to share  
more details with anyone who is interested, once the programs are  
concluded. Assembly Bill attached.

Best,

Gillian

Gillian Greensite
UCSC Rape Prevention Education

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:15:55 -0400
From: 

Subject: AN OPEN LETTER TO WHOOPI GOLDBERG
To: 

Message-ID: 
<>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

AN OPEN LETTER TO WHOOPI GOLDBERG

Dear Whoopi;

Yesterday on "The View", you said Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to
"unlawful sex with a minor", but that it wasn't "rape rape".? So I've
been wondering -

What the hell is "rape rape"?

I know you said your point was to articulate the nature of the crime to
which he pleaded guilty - which, you said, was somehow DIFFERENT from
"rape".

It isnt.

"Unlawful sex with a minor" IS the crime of child rape in California.

So again - I ask you - how is "rape rape" different from "rape"?

Regular folks understand "rape" to mean "sexual penetration without
consent" - and of course, consent is irrelevant when the victim is a
child.

The law says "rape" means:? "sexual penetration".

The dictionary says "rape" is:? "forced sexual intercourse".

No matter which definitional source you use, Whoopi, Polanski "raped"
his victim.

So I'm trying to understand what you meant when you say it wasn't "rape
rape".

Did you mean it wasn't "real rape"? ?

What wasn't "real" enough about the crime for you, Whoopi?

A 43 year old man forced his penis into a 13 year-old child's vagina -
and then he forced his penis into her anus.? How is this "rape", but not
"rape rape"?

The victim was not only a child, she was also intoxicated because
Polanski gave her booze and drugs before the crime.? The child protested
- told him to stop - but he continued.? She was incapacitated to a point
where she could barely walk, much less defend herself against her 43
year-old attacker.? Is that enough for "rape rape", Whoopi?

What would have done it for you?? If he'd used a knife - or jumped on
her in a dark alley instead of a bed?? If it had happened at a homeless
shelter instead of the mansion of a famous Hollywood actor?? If he'd had
to remove a trench coat before committing the crime, rather than silk
underwear from a fancy shop on Rodeo Drive?

What if the victim had been a little black girl from a triple decker in
the poorest part of Los Angeles?? Would that have been "rape rape",
Whoopi? Or would you have still offered the same lame excuse you came up
with on The View - that "people in other countries see things
differently" when middle-aged men force themselves on children.

If it's true that 13 year-old kids in France are so disrespected they
can anticipate being attacked by men - you can and should condemn the
practice - not chalk it up to a "cultural difference" - as if to suggest
that the United States might evolve one day to a period of enlightenment
when we will be "liberated" enough to celebrate the sexual abuse of
children. ?

Your audience is filed with women who need and deserve the empowerment
potential in a show like yours. Cultural values are created, in part,
through the dissemination of ideas.? You had a chance to explain to
millions of people why the personal autonomy, bodily integrity and
liberty of all women and children is at stake when even one rapist is
not held accountable for his actions.? At a minimum, you could have
explained how backward we really are in this country - and how the
epidemic of rape and child sex abuse serves as a kind of domestic
terrorism that interferes with the freedom of millions of people who are
affected by the disproportionate failure of our legal system to redress
sexual violence.? According to a study submitted to Congress in support
of the Violence Against Women Act in the 1990s, by then Senator Joseph
Biden, only 2% of rapists spend even one day behind bars.? Violence
against women and children is grossly underreported and underprosecuted,
and the data c
 onsistently shows that crimes against property are punished much more
harshly than crimes against female bodies.

Rather than highlight this profound and pervasive injustice, you
bemoaned the fact that Mr. Polanski was compelled to flee the United
States after pleading guilty to child rape because he was about to be go
to jail for "a hundred years". ?

Many people would argue he deserved such a sentence, and under
California law today, but not back then, drugging and raping a child
would expose Mr. Polanski to a mandatory minimum term of 25 years.? But
because he was allowed to plead guilty to only one of six felonies with
which he was originally charged - he faced no more than four years
behind bars, and some reports say the judge intended to impose a
sentence of only a few weeks of incarceration.

Mr. Polanski arrogantly decided that he shouldn't spend any time in
jail, and he fled this country spinelessly for a nation he knew would
not extradite him for his crime.? If it's true, as has been reported,
that he took off because he thought it was unfair that he should go to
jail after his lawyer worked out a "no jail" deal with the prosecutor,
he had a right to withdraw his guilty plea and go to TRIAL - not PARIS.

That Mr. Polanski would show such disrespect for this country's legal
system is a reason to punish him MORE, not less, for his crime.? It may
be a decades-old case, but it bears stating the obvious that the law
should not reward fugitives for their successful efforts to evade
justice.

Nonetheless, Mr. Polanski is a man of wealth and power, and kids don't
vote or have any money.? Which is why people like you are so quick to
say things that degrade children.? Admit it Whoopi, you'd be talking out
of the other side of your mouth if filmmaker Polanski were garbageman
Polanski.

Next time, try reading the Constitution BEFORE speaking on this topic.?
There's nothing in there that says people of influence should not be
held accountable for their crimes.? In fact, try focusing on the 14th
Amendment for a few minutes - especially the part about how all citizens
are entitled to "equal protection" of the laws.? Then try reading some
of our most basic court decisions that discuss how the law is supposed
to protect the weak, and deter the cunning.

You have a 13 year-old granddaughter, Whoopi.? What does she call you??
"Nana"? "Grandma"?.? What if she told you that she had been "raped" by a
45 year-old man who stripped her naked and then penetrated her private
parts even as she cried "no".? Would you correct her for using the word
"rape"?? Would you say, "sorry sweetheart -? what happened to you was
not a 'rape rape'". ?

No matter how hard some people try to make the crime seem harmless and
full of gray areas - - it really is quite simple if you think about it
the way someone famous once did:? "rape is to sex what a punch in the
mouth is to a kiss".? Not all punches knock teeth out - but nobody ever
says "it wasn't a 'punch punch'". ?

I will say one thing, Whoopi - in your defense.? Maybe we SHOULD give up
the term "rape" altogether, and start calling it "bodily enslavement".?
We could put it in the Constitution as a civil rights crime, rather than
in the lowly statute books alongside shoplifting. ?

I'm thinking if we had initially codified the offense in law where it
truly belongs - under the umbrella of fundamental liberty - you might
have stopped yourself before saying "it wasn't a violation of civil
rights civil rights".

Can you see how dumb that sounds, Whoopi?

I hope so - because you are an important voice for women and children
and I want you to sound smart.

Yours truly,

Wendy Murphy
New England Law|Boston



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:30:10 -0500
From: "Foubert, John" 
<>
Subject: mandatory education in California and through Cleary
To: 
""
 
<>
Message-ID:
        
<>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

SAPC Folks,

With all this talk about mandatory education laws in California and
other states that we've had today on our list serve, and with the
clarification that Dan Carter helped us out with that the Cleary act has
mandated awareness on every campus in some form for years, I just would
like to wonder out loud for a minute.  Is it just me, or does it sound
like there might be the makings of a class action lawsuit here?  I'm no
attorney, but it would seem to me that if institutions are required to
be doing some form of education and are not doing so at all, that
particularly effected individuals (survivors in particular) just might
have a case against a university or a university system for failure to
educate a campus population in violation of the law.  One would think
there might be an enterprising attorney or firm out there that might be
interested in looking into this.

John

**************************************
John D. Foubert, Ph.D.
Associate Professor; Anderson, Farris, and Halligan Professor
Program Coordinator, College Student Development Master's Degree Program
Oklahoma State University School of Educational Studies
314 Willard Hall
Stillwater, OK 74078
(405) 744-1480
(405) 744-7758 fax

http://okstate.academia.edu/JohnFoubert
http://www.okstate.edu/education/ses/edle/csd/csd.html



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:53:45 -0400
From: "S. Daniel Carter" 
<>
Subject: Re: mandatory education in California and through Cleary
To: "Foubert, John" 
<>,
        
""
 
<>
Message-ID: 
<>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="ISO-8859-1"

on 9/29/09 9:30 PM, Foubert, John at 

 wrote:

> Is it just me, or does it sound like there might be the makings of a
class
> action lawsuit here?

There woulden't be under the Clery Act. It, at 20 USC ? 1092(f)(8)(C),
provides that nothing in the Campus Sexual Assault Victim's Bill of
Rights
"shall be construed to confer a private right of action upon any person
to
enforce the provisions of this paragraph.

This was a compromise that had to be struck to get the provisions
enacted
back in 1992.

********************************
S. Daniel Carter
Director of Public Policy
Security On Campus, Inc.
http://www.securityoncampus.org/
e-mail:




------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:49:44 -0500
From: Michael Domitrz 
<>
Subject: Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO WHOOPI GOLDBERG
To: 
,
 SAPC 
<>
Message-ID:
        
<>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes

USA Today's Opinion piece has an interesting article at:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/09/our-opinion-polanski-vs-justice.h
tml

Mike Domitrz
Founder of The Date Safe Project, Inc.
Author of "May I Kiss You?" and "Help! My Teen Is Dating"
"Providing parents, educators, students, and our military Real  
Solutions to Tough Conversations on dating, intimacy, and sexual  
assault."

Toll-Free:  800-329-9390
E-mail:  

Website: http://www.DateSafeProject.org

=====================================
VISIT http://www.DateSafeProject.org to join caring individuals and  ;
organizations in bringing The Date Safe Project's "Can I Kiss You?"  
program to your community.
===========================







On Sep 29, 2009, at 8:15 PM, 

 wrote:

AN OPEN LETTER TO WHOOPI GOLDBERG

Dear Whoopi;

Yesterday on "The View", you said Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to  
"unlawful sex with a minor", but that it wasn't "rape rape".? So I've  
been wondering -

What the hell is "rape rape"?

I know you said your point was to articulate the nature of the crime  
to which he pleaded guilty - which, you said, was somehow DIFFERENT  
from "rape".

It isnt.

"Unlawful sex with a minor" IS the crime of child rape in California.

So again - I ask you - how is "rape rape" different from "rape"?

Regular folks understand "rape" to mean "sexual penetration without  
consent" - and of course, consent is irrelevant when the victim is a  
child.

The law says "rape" means:? "sexual penetration".

The dictionary says "rape" is:? "forced sexual intercourse".

No matter which definitional source you use, Whoopi, Polanski "raped"  
his victim.

So I'm trying to understand what you meant when you say it wasn't  
"rape rape".

Did you mean it wasn't "real rape"? ?

What wasn't "real" enough about the crime for you, Whoopi?

A 43 year old man forced his penis into a 13 year-old child's vagina -  
and then he forced his penis into her anus.? How is this "rape", but  
not "rape rape"?

The victim was not only a child, she was also intoxicated because  
Polanski gave her booze and drugs before the crime.? The child  
protested - told him to stop - but he continued.? She was  
incapacitated to a point where she could barely walk, much less defend  
herself against her 43 year-old attacker.? Is that enough for "rape  
rape", Whoopi?

What would have done it for you?? If he'd used a knife - or jumped on  
her in a dark alley instead of a bed?? If it had happened at a  
homeless shelter instead of the mansion of a famous Hollywood actor??  
If he'd had to remove a trench coat before committing the crime,  
rather than silk underwear from a fancy shop on Rodeo Drive?

What if the victim had been a little black girl from a triple decker  
in the poorest part of Los Angeles?? Would that have been "rape rape",  
Whoopi? Or would you have still offered the same lame excuse you came  
up with on The View - that "people in other countries see things  
differently" when middle-aged men force themselves on children.

If it's true that 13 year-old kids in France are so disrespected they  
can anticipate being attacked by men - you can and should condemn the  
practice - not chalk it up to a "cultural difference" - as if to  
suggest that the United States might evolve one day to a period of  
enlightenment when we will be "liberated" enough to celebrate the  
sexual abuse of children. ?

Your audience is filed with women who need and deserve the empowerment  
potential in a show like yours. Cultural values are created, in part,  
through the dissemination of ideas.? You had a chance to explain to  
millions of people why the personal autonomy, bodily integrity and  
liberty of all women and children is at stake when even one rapist is  
not held accountable for his actions.? At a minimum, you could have  
explained how backward we really are in this country - and how the  
epidemic of rape and child sex abuse serves as a kind of domestic  
terrorism that interferes with the freedom of millions of people who  
are affected by the disproportionate failure of our legal system to  
redress sexual violence.? According to a study submitted to Congress  
in support of the Violence Against Women Act in the 1990s, by then  
Senator Joseph Biden, only 2% of rapists spend even one day behind  
bars.? Violence against women and children is grossly underreported  
and underprosecuted, and the data c
onsistently shows that crimes against property are punished much more  
harshly than crimes against female bodies.

Rather than highlight this profound and pervasive injustice, you  
bemoaned the fact that Mr. Polanski was compelled to flee the United  
States after pleading guilty to child rape because he was about to be  
go to jail for "a hundred years". ?

Many people would argue he deserved such a sentence, and under  
California law today, but not back then, drugging and raping a child  
would expose Mr. Polanski to a mandatory minimum term of 25 years.?  
But because he was allowed to plead guilty to only one of six felonies  
with which he was originally charged - he faced no more than four  
years behind bars, and some reports say the judge intended to impose a  
sentence of only a few weeks of incarceration.

Mr. Polanski arrogantly decided that he shouldn't spend any time in  
jail, and he fled this country spinelessly for a nation he knew would  
not extradite him for his crime.? If it's true, as has been reported,  
that he took off because he thought it was unfair that he should go to  
jail after his lawyer worked out a "no jail" deal with the prosecutor,  
he had a right to withdraw his guilty plea and go to TRIAL - not PARIS.

That Mr. Polanski would show such disrespect for this country's legal  
system is a reason to punish him MORE, not less, for his crime.? It  
may be a decades-old case, but it bears stating the obvious that the  
law should not reward fugitives for their successful efforts to evade  
justice.

Nonetheless, Mr. Polanski is a man of wealth and power, and kids don't  
vote or have any money.? Which is why people like you are so quick to  
say things that degrade children.? Admit it Whoopi, you'd be talking  
out of the other side of your mouth if filmmaker Polanski were  
garbageman Polanski.

Next time, try reading the Constitution BEFORE speaking on this  
topic.? There's nothing in there that says people of influence should  
not be held accountable for their crimes.? In fact, try focusing on  
the 14th Amendment for a few minutes - especially the part about how  
all citizens are entitled to "equal protection" of the laws.? Then try  
reading some of our most basic court decisions that discuss how the  
law is supposed to protect the weak, and deter the cunning.

You have a 13 year-old granddaughter, Whoopi.? What does she call  
you?? "Nana"? "Grandma"?.? What if she told you that she had been  
"raped" by a 45 year-old man who stripped her naked and then  
penetrated her private parts even as she cried "no".? Would you  
correct her for using the word "rape"?? Would you say, "sorry  
sweetheart -? what happened to you was not a 'rape rape'". ?

No matter how hard some people try to make the crime seem harmless and  
full of gray areas - - it really is quite simple if you think about it  
the way someone famous once did:? "rape is to sex what a punch in the  
mouth is to a kiss".? Not all punches knock teeth out - but nobody  
ever says "it wasn't a 'punch punch'". ?

I will say one thing, Whoopi - in your defense.? Maybe we SHOULD give  
up the term "rape" altogether, and start calling it "bodily  
enslavement".? We could put it in the Constitution as a civil rights  
crime, rather than in the lowly statute books alongside shoplifting. ?

I'm thinking if we had initially codified the offense in law where it  
truly belongs - under the umbrella of fundamental liberty - you might  
have stopped yourself before saying "it wasn't a violation of civil  
rights civil rights".

Can you see how dumb that sounds, Whoopi?

I hope so - because you are an important voice for women and children  
and I want you to sound smart.

Yours truly,

Wendy Murphy
New England Law|Boston

_______________________________________________
SAPC mailing list

https://list.mail.virginia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sapc




------------------------------

_______________________________________________
SAPC mailing list

https://list.mail.virginia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sapc


End of SAPC Digest, Vol 1289, Issue 3
*************************************