Reduced capacity. Now that is an angle that you appear to be ignoring in spades. A reduction in consent may be due to the nature of the hour (3am) with fatigue. It may be reduced legally by the presence of alcohol. And, we do not know her mental status as it was not produced to its fullest extent. But, you don't know how that would play out. We don't know if she was under the care of a physician. We don't know if she had any prescription drugs in her system. These questions have not yet been asked and answered about her capacity and vulnerability. So, in essence, you are grasping at the law for cover. But, the one piece of evidence which stands out in consent is the word "no" that she used to getting undressed by the recruit, the first refusal of sex on the video recording. It was at that point that the text of the EOAA report where I oppose the assertion that consent existed. Later testimony I set aside due to the distance of memory to the actual event. No is a very clear word and meaning.
Dean, I know you’re angry about this, and I respect that anger. So am I. I think it is more than appropriate to be angry, especially if one is sold on rape. You should be livid. However, you conclude on my feelings, because I answer you dryly. That is misplaced. I have not made my feelings known. The truth is I have come down on both sides, multiple times since the story broke, and I digested the evidence. I know I seem sold, but that is due to nuance that I’ve simply failed to communicate.
Generally, I would have avoided the prior paragraph. However, you hit what pisses me off the most right on the head. I see the EOAA investigation as one that creates questions, where it should’ve strove to remove as much doubt as possible.
To be fair, I have been involved in a number of professional investigations. In each, I owed a duty, to the public, of due care. I also owed a duty, to the public, of objectivity. My charge was in the financial realm and thus the stakes were never as grave. Nonetheless, I have taken great pains to uphold those duties. I consider duty to be sacred, as it is the counterbalance to every individual right. I.E. For someone to have a right, another person must perform a duty. Moreover, I value rigor, integrity, discipline, and hard work.
I am pissed because I see an investigation that lacks all of these. Objectivity is exceptionally difficult. We aren’t wired for it. So when I open a report that is grossly negligent in its procedural structure, I wonder who implemented it, and more shockingly, who reviewed and approved it. You don’t build a process that requires discipline, when things are hard, and you need it to work. You build it before, and critique, and amend, after each action. Where are you Regents? Where were you Regents?
I see an investigation that opens questions, instead of answering them. I see an investigation that appears to do more to alleviate the emotional feelings of the investigator, than works to serve the alleged victim. I see a process that adopts “confirmation bias” as its watchword.
To me, I was much more taken aback by the police report. You know though, I must admit, I knew through training how to read them. I’m already familiar with the dry, unemotional nature. There’s a reason they don’t have an “official” version of events. They are much more thorough. They pay attention to detail. They don’t ignore hard questions.
I find my heart sinking multiple times daily. I don’t look at you negatively, or Upnorth, or CoMN, etc. I think we are all hurt. I think it is what is good and proper in the situation. What I do think, is you all should respect that a lot of us are hurt for very similar reasons, and we all just bring different life experiences with us, that can, and often do, help to ask the most important questions.
Both sides can claim a national problem. I won’t argue that. Nevertheless, I can unequivocally state, that all rights are meaningless, until one considers them in context with the underlying quality of due process. Simply put, due process gives rights their teeth; they’re otherwise, only fiat. Hence, the erosion of due process only serves to damage the alleged victim, the current accused, and all future victims of rape. To me it’s perverse, and I will fight it. Hell, that’s why I’m a veteran. I see that as a pattern in thoughts and trends of the current national activism.
I know we cannot stop rape here (on Gopherhole, nor can those at the U). We do have an opportunity to seriously improve due process for all parties. Those are certainties, and compromise my motivation for continuing the dialogue.
All in all, We needed a robust process. Justice is blind for a reason. All students, deserve equal protection in process performed at the University. I don’t think any of them received such.
P.S. I’ll answer your post’s question separately, as to detach the answer and reasoning from my emotions.
