From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: fraternities
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:23:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Witherspoon Excludables

In <1992Apr13.185451.3008@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, sag0798@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu stated:
>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? 
>				    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.

Is this what passes for thinking among undergrads these days?

Your attempt at analogy is hopelessly inapt.  Ted has *repeatedly*
made the factual observation that rapes occur in conjunction with frat
activities (viz. drinking), and frequently on frat premises.  Neither
Ted nor anyone else is claiming that your hypothetical environmental
group is culpable, unless your analogy also assumes that members of
the SEC rape guests in their offices and/or organize drinking events
designed to get everyone trashed (and laid, by force or otherwise).

Of course, if that's what you meant, why, yes, those evil Greens are
bad as an organization as well as individually.



>>Would you
>>say that the Klan lynched blacks, or that Klan members lynched blacks?
>>It's a minor semantical point, I suppose, much on the level of "Guns
>>don't kill people, people kill people (but the guns sure help a lot)."
>
>This is entirely different since fraternities were not organized to rape 
>women as guns were made to kill.

It doesn't dispose of the question to say that frats are not designed
expressly to rape.  (Some might contend that they *are*, but let's
assume for argument's sake that they're not.)  Frats are no less
undesirable if they simply create conditions in which we (and they)
know rape is a likely consequence.

Since Ted has posted extensive evidence that frats create rape
conditions, whether deliberately or with indifference, exactly what
relevance attaches to your reply?


>>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:
>
>>(1) The rape is more likely to be an acquaintence 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.

No, you twit; note Ted's use of quote marks, often indicative in the
English language of colloquial, non-literal description.  The point is
that college rowdies get away with murder on account of their status
as university students. (*)  When they're middle class, well dressed,
educated, and/or backed by an influential body of frat alums, the
institutional and social factors in the criminal system weigh even
more strongly against prosecution and conviction.  The St. John's rape
case here in NYC recently is only the latest example of this historic
fact. 

* (See George Ade's "The Fable of the Copper and the Jovial
Undergrads", from _Fables in Slang_, for an account from the 19th
century of this venerable tradition: "MORAL: Always select the Right
Sort of Parents before you start in to be Rough.")


>>    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.

DAs are elected officials, subject to the whim of the same people who
serve on juries and acquit rapists for the reasons cited above.


>>(3) The rape victim is likely to have low credibility:
>>	(a) She'll more likely than not have been drinking.
>
>This may be true.
>
>>	(b) She'll have arrived unescorted to a late-night party.
>
>What does this have to do with the credibility of the victim?

Defense attorneys will argue, and juries will infer, that she wanted
to get laid.  Of course, acquittals on that ground often ignore the
issue of whether she actually *consented* to relations with the
defendant(s) in particular.  

To draw an analogy your tiny mind can grasp: I may be hungry when I
walk into a restaurant; that doesn't license the restaurateur to force
feed me (and charge me for) the entree he wants to get rid of, whether
I want it or not.



>>And when the rape
>>victim does come forward, she finds herself blamed by the campus press,
>>and harassed by the Greek system.  It's stunning how often this
>>scenario is repeated from campus to campus. 
>
>Just how often IS this scenerio repeated from campus to campus?
>
>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.

With all respect my foot.  Your willful disregard of the facts that
Ted has offered on several occasions indicates that you're the one
dreaming up "scenerios" (Hint: those quote marks indicate disdain
here.  Tricky buggers, ain't they?) to suit your oafish
preconceptions.

-- 
When the Persians have an important decision to make, the leaders discuss it
when drunk. They revisit their decision when sober, and adopt it only if they
reach that same conclusion again.  Conversely, any decisions made in sobriety
are reconsidered in drink. {Herodotus, bk. 1}   eck@panix.com  Mark Eckenwiler
Xref: sparky soc.college:2021 talk.rape:936 soc.women:9089