From: 01sybok@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: soc.college,talk.rape,soc.women
Subject: Re: fraternities
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:00:22 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Apr13.212931.3261@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <1992Apr13.185451.3008@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> sag0798@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Sassan Attari ) writes:
>>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>>I'm not so sure it's dishonest to say "fraternities."  Do fraternity
>>>members haze, or do fraternities? 
>>
>>It may not be dishonest saying you believe that fraternities have a policies
>>encouraging hazing, but it would be untrue for National fraternities.
> 
> I don't believe that one bit.  Nationals were well aware of the hazing
> going on at Brandeis, and the heaviest action ever taken was suspending
> ZBT for one month.
> 
>>>				    One could say it's the member, but
>>>having the institution there certainly makes a difference. 
>>
>>How does being in an organization make a difference?  Going on your thinking,
>>if one of these rapists was also a member of Students for Environmental 
>>Concerns, you would say that this organization rapes.
> 
> Pay attention to the arguments, because it's been well-documented and
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> argued why the nature of the fraternity leads to rape.  If you'd like to
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ted, this is the problem with every single posting I've seen from you. Its 
been well documented where? As a law student, you *must* know these things are
important, and you can't go making generalizations. They take away from
whatever credibility you manage to aquire.

>>>But they're speculations on the conservative side.  The problem is
>>>almost certainly much worse than either of us realize.  There are several
>>>reasons why fraternity members are less likely to be convicted of rape:
>>>(2) The rapist is going to have high credibility: the "white college
>>>    boy" factor.
>>
>>This is pretty discriminatory.  You also are assuming that all fraternities 
>>only allow "white" college men to join and/or only "white" fraternity members
>>are accused of rape.
> 
> My apologies for not being completely precise and using the words "the vast
> majority of the time."  I don't think you can dispute that
> there is a huge socioeconomic and racial difference between the makeup of
> the set of fraternity rapists and the set of convicted rapists.
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
Once again, if you want to win people over, you have to give facts. What are 
the socioeconomic factors? You are making generalizations, and elitists ones at
that vis a vis "convicted rapists are usually lower class minorities". If 
you are going to say something like that , BACK IT UP! WE AREN't GOING TO
BELIEVE YOU OTHERWISE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>>    if the case comes to court, and D.A's....
>>>    above and below, are just not going to risk their success rate
>>>    in criminal trials to bring up an unpopular case that's almost a
>>>    sure loser
>>
>>If this is true, the D.A. should not be in office.  If there is a possibility
>>that there was a violation of a law, they should prosecute to determine if a 
>>law was broken.
> 
> Ah, idealism.  The D.A. (1) cares about being re-elected, and (2) has a
> limited set of resources.  Unless they have a strong ideological bent, or
> unless there's public pressure, they're not going to devote resources to a
> case that they have a slim chance of winning when they can devote those 
> same resources to a perfectly good open-and-shut case against a poor 
> person whose only legal assistance is a public service attorney with 
> fifty other cases to handle.  

The first poster was right... if the DA is ignoring broken laws, then he/she
should not be in office. Even you must admit that, Ted.
> 
>>>(3) The rape victim is likely to have low credibility:
>>>	(b) She'll have arrived unescorted to a late-night party.
>>
>>What does this have to do with the credibility of the victim?
> 
> In a perfect world?  Nothing.  In the United States of America, with
> real live flesh-and-blood juries, it means a lot.
> 
>>>(4) The rapist(s) have the backing of an institution that encourages
>>>    its members to stick up for one another -- it'll be the word of
>>>    the victim against that of the entire fraternity.
>>
>>This is not entirely true when it comes to events infringing on any local, 
>>state, or federal laws and anything that goes against religious and personal
>>beliefs.  At least in my fraternity, when something like a rape (and it hasn't
>>to my knowledge) occurs, we, as members of the fraternity, are encouraged to
>>CORRECT the wrong that has been done, not HIDE it.  If it means reporting an 
>>infraction of applicable laws and beliefs, then so beit.
> 
> I'm so glad that you belong to a perfect fraternity.  (In fact, I have yet
> to meet anyone who isn't in a perfect fraternity.  Maybe all these fraternity
> hazing deaths and rapes come from fraternities that disappear in UFO
> abductions.)  The problem I describe is well-documented.
> 
None of us ever said we lived in perfect fraternities, Ted. Once again, you
are generalizing. We do live in nonhazing/nonraping fraternities, though.

>>>Add the general insensitivity of college administrators, police, and
>>>district attorneys to rape, a victim that is likely to blame herself
>>>because of factors in reason (3), and the general result is that being
>>>in a fraternity is virtually a license to rape. 
>>
>>Oh please...I don't think even you believe this last statement.
> 
> It's only a slight exaggeration.  Even the most egregious cases
> (such as the St. John's incident, which was highly publicized and had
> racial overtones) rarely come to trial, and then, more often than not,
> result in acquittals by jurors not wanting to ruin the lives of college
> boys with a future.
> 
Maybe the acquittals were because there was reasonable doubt, Ted. Or 
insufficient evidence. Or maybe they thought the man wasn't guilty.

>>With all due respect to the seriousness concerning rape and sexual assult, and
>>after reading what TED has to say, I conclude that Ted has the knowledge to 
>>do little else than tell stories and dream up rape scenerios in his head.
> 
> Why do you conclude this?  Because it doesn't fit in with your preconceived
> notions that fraternities can do no wrong?  You certainly haven't provided
> any counter-evidence other than self-serving statements like "my fraternity 
> doesn't do this."
> -- 
I agree with the first poster, Ted. You take cheap shots at others because they
bring up points you can't argue, they give real life testimony that you can't
deny, and so you argue back with meaninless rhetoric, and arguments that have
no supporting evidence whatsoever. I can tell this, and I'm not even a law
student.

Mike
Newsgroups: soc.college