Rape laws are state criminal statutes--they are passed by state legislatures, and not by congress. You are so ignorant that, after 385 pages, you don't even realize we have been discussing state laws. And, specifically, criminal laws. The state government has a vested interest in making sure that the public is aware of the content of criminal laws, in order to make sure that the laws are not violated out of sheer ignorance. It is illogical to suggest that state governments in the U.S. want to keep criminal laws secret or little known--particularly when they pertain to sexual activities.
Firefly future is on the march at Duke University.
Duke parties under scrutiny
Female students invited as 'hosts' at end-of-rush debaucheries of booze and sex, critics say.
By Eric Ferrer
Jan. 22, 2011
DURHAM Some Duke University student activists hope to end a long-held practice where female students are plied with booze and encouraged to cozy up to new fraternity recruits.
It happens at "progressive" parties, generally held at the end of rush, the period during which fraternities and sororities evaluate prospective members. At Duke, the latest rush period concludes next weekend.
Female students are invited to be hosts at these fraternity parties. The Duke Chronicle student newspaper reported this week that the women's tasks at the parties can range "from bartending to providing sexual favors." The women often dress provocatively and are stationed in party rooms bearing such themes as "spring break" and "school girls," critics say.
Student activists call the parties exploitative and dangerous to the young women who take part. A new group, the Greek Women's Initiative, recently held a forum examining the issue, and petitions seeking to end the practice have garnered about 800 signatures.
Duke officials not only applaud this activism, they defer to it. Although administrators don't like the progressive parties, they can't do much about them because they're largely held off campus, said Larry Moneta, vice president of student affairs.
"Change is not going to be dictated by the administration," Moneta said. "We're joining with the students in targeting [the parties]. If a violation of university policy comes to light, they're going to be held accountable. The more students who can express their outrage - and the more we can help them express their disdain - the better."
Moneta is one of several high-ranking Duke administrators to sign petitions seeking an end to the parties. Others include Provost Peter Lange; Stephen Nowicki, dean of undergraduate education; and Sue Wasiolek, dean of students.
The petitions were gathered by a collection of students calling themselves Duke University Women's Respect. But members reached Friday declined to comment for the record.
Many won't talk
Likewise, several student leaders with Greek organizations and members of the Greek Women's Initiative either could not be reached this week or declined to comment. On campus, others also did not want to talk openly about the issue.
Duke senior Erskine Love, president of the Interfraternity Council, declined to discuss the matter. In a Duke Chronicle story this week, he is quoted as saying that while half of Duke's fraternities don't hold progressive parties, the recent public discussion gives those that do a new perspective.
Donna Lisker, associate vice provost of undergraduate education, said the progressive parties feed stereotypes that should be quashed. She credits the student movement with sparking campus debate.
"There's a lot of easy, misogynistic, old-fashioned ways to fall into roles," said Lisker, the former director of the Women's Center at Duke. "The challenge is to think and analyze and do better, socially. Part of being 18, 19, 20 is to try things out. But these are students now saying this is outdated and we can do better."
Still, students aren't united in their disdain for these parties. Michelle Sohn, a senior, has several female friends who have attended. Some liked them, others did not, and Sohn is wary of generalizing about the dangers of progressive parties or the roles played by women who take part.
"It's a complicated, nuanced issue," said Sohn, who has kept an eye on the public discussion through her role as gender issues liaison to Duke's student government. "I don't condemn it or laud it. I think it's something that goes on that needs to be talked about more."
Sohn said she has not attended a progressive party herself.
Each room has a theme
Progressives are known as such because party-goers progress from one room to the next, each room decorated with a different motif, such as a casino or military theme.
The women are often armed with party favors. In a long entry on Develle Dish, a Duke student website, one unidentified woman writes at length about attending a progressive party and being given chocolate syrup and squirt guns filled with alcohol.
The room-to-room party format isn't the problem, argues Mike LeFevre, Duke's student body president and a member of the Pi Kappa Phi fraternity. But the women who attend should never feel pressured to do anything they don't want to, he said.
"Nothing that is happening is illegal," he said. "Having a girl pour chocolate syrup on a guy, it's not illegal. Though it isn't something we'd tell our parents about."
Underage drinking is illegal. And while alcohol is prohibited at official rush events, Duke officials say they can do little about off-campus events.
And even if the university could wield a heavy hand, doing so might be counter-productive, Lisker said. She hopes the recent surge in interest by students who balk at the practice continues.
"We can issue rules and regulations all the time, but it has to be the students taking a stand," she said. "Often, telling them not to do something is the kiss of death."
Fraternity members know not to distribute alcohol at rush events, said Fred Dobry, director of risk reduction for Sigma Nu Fraternity, Inc., which is based in Lexington, Va., and has a chapter at Duke.
"We take allegations of misconduct very seriously," said Dobry, who had not heard about the Duke progressive party issue until this week. "We promote and teach our chapters to use a values-based recruitment model. Obviously, alcohol isn't part of the values."
Latest black eye
For many at Duke, this talk of ribald fraternity parties is the latest headache. It follows closely on a November plea to students for better conduct from President Richard Brodhead that was prompted by incidents including the ending of Tailgate, a drunken party prior to home football games. Duke pulled the plug after the teenage sibling of a student was discovered, passed out, in a portable toilet.
Officials insist this behavior is neither unique to Duke nor indicative of the current campus culture.
"There are [these] behaviors on campuses around the country, and I dare you to find one where I won't find an example of this," Moneta said. "This is not the vast Duke experience. What distinguishes us is that we have a group of Duke students who say it won't be acceptable."
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/01/22/1999565/progressive-duke-parties-under.html
This has nothing to do with state sexual assault law. Duke is a private institution. They can put into policy, or propose, anything they wish--then it becomes a matter for open debate between their students and their administrators.
2. Discussion of these matters
Um.....................I don't believe the military falls under the jurisdiction of STATE laws. We have been discussing STATE laws.
Be careful guys if you put "too" must pressure on a woman to consent to having sex with you the label or rapist will be apply.
extreme pressure
It all how you define terms such terms as extreme pressure as is it extreme pressure that turn consensus sex into rape if a man tell his girlfriend that if she does not end her boycott of having sex with him she damn well will need to find somewhere else to live?
Again, you are not referring to any specific state rape laws. Is this issue referred to, or addressed, in your state sexual assault laws --or don't you even know if that is the case?
Why should non-physical coercion even be necessary if the sexual intercourse is genuinely "consenting"?
Sorry AM as millions of US citizens and non-citizens live under Federal criminal laws I see zero logic to not place such in the same grouping as state criminal codes.
Reports indicate that nearly one third of women serving in the US military have been raped, with over two thirds having been otherwise sexually assaulted.
January 29, 2011
In 2008, 62 percent of those convicted of sexual assault or rape received punishments such as demotion, suspension, or a written reprimand.
“Almost a third of all women serving are raped, and over two thirds sexually assaulted, this problem is rampant and systemic,” National Public Radio has reported.
"Everybody's supposed to have a battle buddy in the army, and females are supposed to have one to go to the latrines with, or to the showers - that's so you don't get raped by one of the men on your own side. But because I was the only female there, I didn't have a battle buddy. My battle buddy was my gun and my knife,'' Army specialist Chantelle Henneberry said.
Back in 2003, a survey of female veterans suggested that 30 percent of the women serving had been raped, while a study conducted in the following year on veterans seeking treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder indicated that 71 percent of the women said they had been sexually assaulted or raped while serving.
Jamie Leigh Jones recently reported that she had been gang-raped back in 2005, and had received severe injuries. An amendment has been added to the defense appropriations bill by Sen. Al Franken.
According to the amendment, defense contractors will be required to allow employees, wherever stationed, to access American courts in cases of rape or assault.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/162508.html
Is this how we treat our female soldiers?
by John Lasker
January 27, 2011
.....
MST=Military Sexual Assault
The MST numbers: present and unknown
MST, which encompasses both assault and harassment, and also includes male victims, is no dark secret and in no way a new trend for the military.
Two decades have passed since Tailhook, where Navy aviators forced female officers to run a gauntlet where they were groped. A seminal moment in bringing attention to MST occurred in 2003, when the American Journal of Industrialized Medicine published a study in which it interviewed roughly 500 female veterans who were enlisted sometime between Vietnam and the first Iraq war. According to the study, one in three stated she experienced “one or more completed or attempted rapes.”
In 2006, Congress mandated the Department of Defense to initiate a comprehensive program to track sexual assaults. MST victims said it’s stunning to consider the department took until the 21st century to begin totaling sexual assaults annually within all five military branches and oversea commands.
In fiscal year 2008, 2,900 sexual assaults were reported. This was a nine-percent increase across the armed forces and a 26-percent increase in war zones from 2007. For fiscal year 2009, there were 3,230 reports of sexual assault, an 11-percent increase across the armed forces from 2008 and a 33-percent increase in war zones.
These figures do not include the troop members and veterans who were scared to come forward. The Department of Defense has estimated the number of unreported sexual assaults in the armed forces is between 50 and 80 percent.
Seeking to reveal MST statistics the Department of Defense refuses to make public, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Service Women’s Action Network filed a lawsuit against the Department of Defense and the Department Veterans Affairs in December. The groups said the Department of Defense needs to release the number of convictions, acquittals and sexual-harassment complaints to expose the entire MST problem.
Predators know they can get away with it
What is painfully unmistakable is that the U.S. military has a culture where rape victims are re-victimized when they try to report crimes to commanding officers, Ret. Col. Ann Wright who wrote the widely read article questioning why more enlisted female soldiers commit suicide overseas compared to enlisted male soldiers who are more likely to commit suicide when back in the states.
“Most times the perp is good friends with the platoon sergeant or commanding officer, and they tell the victim, ‘You’re nothing but a private, and you want to ruin the career of this guy who wants to make the military his life?’” Wright said. “They tell the private, ‘Just shut up.’ This type of intimidation is so prevalent.”
According to military law, commanding officers have the final decision on whether military personnel of their unit are charged with a criminal offense that occurred while on duty. In a war zone, the air of intimidation, according to Wright, can be ratcheted to another level simply because the victim is surrounded by violence and confusion.
“They’ll say, ‘You’re going to be dead by tomorrow,’” Wright said. “‘Raping you is just the cost of war. We’ll just chalk it up (your murder) to unsafe security.’”
Wright said the foremost reason why some male soldiers are so brazen about rape and sexual harassment is simply because the military tolerates it, even while Secretary of Defense Robert Gates insists the military doesn’t stand for any type of MST.
According to 2007 Department of Denfense statistics, 600 out of roughly 2,200 sexual-assault cases investigated had suspects facing any sort of accountability.
One hundred eighty of the 600 suspects were court-martialed, meaning they would face trial by a military court. This means just under 10 percent of military sexual-assault suspects faced prosecution that year; in the civilian world, 40 percent on average face prosecution per year.
Nonpunitive administrative action or discharge was recommended for 220 of the 600 suspects, and the final 200 suspects were given nonjudicial punishment. Nonjudicial punishment is essentially a slap on the wrist and involves being subjected to extra work duties, for instance.
The other 1,600 sexual-assault cases for 2007 were dropped.
Coincidently, a 2008 Government Accountability Office survey found 50 percent of military sexual-assault victims never even reported the crime because they felt nothing would come of it.
“This matter is a laughing stock among men in the military,” Wright said. “It’s like a joke for the guys because they know they’ll never get prosecuted. The atmosphere in the military is you know you can get away with it.”
What was there non-action truly worth?
To gauge just how seriously the Department of Defense takes MST, victim advocates said they consider how the department ran its 12-member Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military.
In 2005, Congress mandated the Department of Defense to form this task force to develop prevention strategies and track data. But in 2008, the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, discovered the task force hadn’t done anything substantial regarding MST (PDF).
The 12 task force members spent $15 million over three years and told the GAO they needed the millions to pay civilian staff and cover travel expenses.
What was the task force’s non-action truly worth? Wright said nearly 6,000 military rapes occurred during those three years.
To the Department of Defense’s credit, another task force at the time — the Department of Defense Task Force Report for Victims of Sexual Assault — realized the department needed a lead office to establish and enforce sexual-assault policy matters across the armed services.
In 2005, the Department of Defense created the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, or SAPRO, which strictly deals with sexual assault and harassment, and its accomplishments are gaining traction.
SAPRO established a 24-hour global hotline, a number given to all soldiers during their pre-deployment training. According to a January 2011 article in The Christian Science Monitor, the Army is also training 4,000 victim advocates and sexual-assault response coordinators, or SARCs, and the Navy has trained an estimated 12,000 healthcare personnel for sexual-assault response.
Additionally, the Department of Defense created the Sexual Harassment/Assault Responsive Program, or SHARP, a grassroots effort for all military personnel, which has produced a rap song titled “I.A.M. STRONG.” The song’s chorus includes: “You need to … Intervene! Motivate! Act! … Turnin’ the other cheek is a thing of the past!”
The rap mirrors SAPRO’s fundamental prevention for sexual assault and harassment against the female soldier — bystander’s intervention.
Karen Whitley, SAPRO director, said just as society has learned to take the keys away from an imminent drunk driver, the Department of Defense urges military personnel to intervene in situation they believe might result in MST.
Whitley said inspiring major shifts in cultural attitudes, such as the effort to raise awareness about the dangers of drunk driving over the last 30 years, takes eight to 10 years before witnessing any lasting success.
“We’re now five years into this,” she said. “I feel the military leads the way on improving societal issues, and I feel we’re going to make a difference here.”
But not long after its creation, SAPRO became a target of MST advocates. They argue some of SAPRO’s newly implemented policies to help encourage more victims to report MST crimes — such as restricted reporting — are not tough enough and even laughable.
Restricted and unrestricted reporting
Army veteran Susan Avila-Smith runs the MST advocacy group VETWOW, which stands for Veteran Women Organizing Women.
Avila-Smith’s been advocating for MST victims since 1995, after the military refused to punish her Army ex-husband after he jumped up and down on her pregnant stomach and killed their baby. Yet what enraged her to become an MST advocate was what happened after she sought justice from commanding officers.
“I was told not to talk to anybody about it or I would be BCD’d, which is a Bad Conduct Discharge,” she said.
Avila-Smith said VETWOW represents 3,000 veterans who were raped during their enlistment, and nearly all of them told their commanding officers about the crime. Many revealed to her the fallout from this was worse than the rape itself, she said.
Before the military put into action new sexual-assault reporting procedures in 2005, military law offered rape victims only a single choice if they were to seek an investigation. Tell company-level commanding officers about the rape and who the alleged rapist was. Company-level commanders oversee between 75 to 200 troops and are judge and jury when handing down criminal charges that occur while on duty.
Thus it's no surprise some Department of Defense sexual-assault task forces of this decade have made the issue of confidentiality for rape victims a top priority. This is a clear signal that the re-victimization of rape victims in the military is arguably the greatest obstacle to derailing MST.
Seeking confidentiality, SAPRO initiated a two-track sexual-assault reporting policy in 2005 called restricted and unrestricted reporting.
Restricted reporting allows the victim a new choice — to bypass chain of command by not having to disclose the name of the victim or the rapist.
Instead, restricted reporting permits a victim to call a SARC on a hotline or tell a victim advocate such as a chaplain or healthcare professional. Once a restricted report is made, advocacy and counseling is initiated for the victim, but an investigation is not triggered.
Unrestricted reporting sticks with military tradition. Service members who desire an investigation, along with healthcare services, must notify commanding officers of the rape and whom they’re accusing.
For the 3,500 soldiers who have utilized restricted reporting, Whitley called it “remarkable progress.”
“That’s 3,500 people we feel we’re helping who would have never come forward if not for restricted reporting,” she said. “And that tells me it’s working.”
But there are several glaring drawbacks to restricted reporting, Avila-Smith said, and the limitations are also posted on SHARP’s website.
According to the SHARP website, “Your assailant remains unpunished and capable of assaulting other victims,” and “You will continue to have contact with your assailant, if he/she is in your organization billeted with you.”
Essentially, an alleged rapist goes free under restricted reporting, and if the alleged rapist is in the same unit as the victim, which is a common occurrence according to VETWOW, the predator is still interacting with the victim.
“We’ve struggled with this, but what we want is people to come forward and get the care they need,” Avila-Smith said.
VETWOW and other MST advocacy groups refuse to acknowledge restricted reporting as a remedy to curb MST. Simply put, restricted reporting has meant 3,500 alleged predators got away with rape, she said.
“Restricted reporting? It’s a joke,” Avila-Smith said with a scoff. According to her, the number one thing the Department of Defense needs to do is hold commanding officers accountable — meaning higher-ranked commanders or civilians trained in prosecuting sexual assault are allowed transparency to the MST investigations of commanding officers and an equal or greater say when administering an indictment.
Other MST advocates are also championing institutional overhauls. U.S. Army veteran Olga Ferrer is the director of A Black Rose, a nonprofit MST advocacy group. While stationed in Kuwait during the Gulf War, Ferrer was alone in a shared shower facility when a male soldier snuck up from behind.
She filed a report and sought military police to help with the investigation, but instead they told her the “report had vanished.” She is adamant the only way to end MST is to involve a civilian element.
“Every military site — overseas or in the U.S. — should have a unit or group, that includes doctors, nurses, therapists, that investigates sexual assaults and does not fall under the DOD or military,” she said. “These people will be the ones where all sexual assaults will be reported to.”
She said restricted reporting makes her anger boil.
“The alleged rapist should immediately be removed from the victim’s unit, and the victim should also be placed somewhere else,” Ferrer said. “They should not be working together. Period. The only one being restricted is the victim.”
“Just tell the truth”
Avila-Smith believes civilians can remain patriotic and supportive of the troops but need to see the U.S. military and its culture with objective eyes.
“People don’t want to care because people don’t want to believe this is true,” she said. “And because it doesn’t exist to them, they have no empathy for victims.”
In regards to Lavena Johnson, Avila-Smith said, “It’s really truly amazing what the military will do to cover things up.”
“It would be so much better if the military just tells the truth,” she said. “It would be quicker, cleaner and a whole lot cheaper. Just tell the truth.”
Spot.us note: Susan Burke, a highly regarded Washington D.C.-based attorney is preparing to file a class-action lawsuit on behalf of MST survivors to change how the U.S. military deals with sexual-assault committed within its ranks as well as its aftermath. The suit will ask for both damages and changes in the military’s practices so that everyone who wants to serve our country can do so free from sexual harassment and assault. Burke can be contacted at ssajadi AT burkeoneil DOT com.
http://spot.us/stories/796-is-this-how-we-treat-our-female-soldiers-families-seek-answers-about-daughters-noncombat-deaths
A Missed Opportunity
By Jacob J. Hutt
Monday, January 31, 2011
Many female service members deployed overseas stop drinking water after 7 p.m. to reduce the risk of being raped if they have to make a nighttime trip to the bathroom. A new class action lawsuit against the military contends that sexual assault occurs twice as frequently in the military as in civilian society. But the recent critique of the military has focused on the institutional discrimination in “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), not on the ugly, equally pressing problem of sexual assault, and in President Drew G. Faust’s recent remarks connecting the end of DADT to the beginning of a Reserve Officer Training Corp (ROTC) at Harvard, we see the same singling out of discriminatory policy as an obstacle to progress. If Harvard is fighting the good fight, Faust’s high-profile announcement was a missed opportunity for broader comment on how we’d like our armed forces to change.
Some background: On December 18, 2010, President Faust released a statement announcing her intention to work with military officials to achieve “full and formal recognition of ROTC,” an announcement that was expected after the Senate’s long-awaited repeal of DADT. The link between a potential Reserve Officer Training Corp (ROTC) at Harvard and the existence of DADT had become national news. In a September interview in The Boston Globe, Faust indicated that she would allow ROTC on campus once the Clinton-era law banning gay and lesbian service members from serving openly was repealed. The repeal of DADT marked the end of the military’s violation of Harvard's non-discrimination policy.The message to the military was clear: Your discriminatory policy is gone, so now you pass by our standards.
But did Faust’s sole focus on the non-discrimination policy as grounds for refusing—and now welcoming—the military ignore other serious problems in the military that we can’t label “institutional discrimination”?
In March 2010, the Pentagon released an annual report on sexual assault showing an 11 percent jump in reports of sexual assault in the military in 2009. At least part of this rise is likely attributable to better reporting services and a military more attune to victims’ fears of coming forward with their stories. There is no doubt that the military has become more accountable for sexual assault since 2004, when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ordered a review process for how the military handled sexual assault. A year later, SAPRO, the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, became the permanent point of accountability and oversight for sexual assault policy, and it has been credited with better training for first-responders, enhanced methods of treatment, and more prosecutions of perpetrators. If 80 to 90 percent of sexual assaults go unreported, as SAPRO estimates, a rise in reported assaults may just mean that the victims, predominantly female, are now more comfortable coming forward. But there is reason to believe that this is not the full story.
Exactly one week before President Faust announced her satisfaction with the end of DADT, the ACLU, SWAN, the Service Women’s Action Network, and a handful of Yale Law students filed a lawsuit pressing the Pentagon to release its rape records. While it’s tough to root for Yale, it’s tougher to side with a military that won’t make public a vital set of data on this urgent problem. The plaintiffs assert that the problem of sexual assault is far greater than the Pentagon or SAPRO is willing to admit. The military may be doing something to prevent sexual assault, but it is not doing enough. A recent Boston Globe editorial described the absence of guaranteed access to legal counsel for victims, suggesting that it could draw attention to the failure of the military to provide for its service members. Even the touted prosecutions of perpetrators are dismally low—only eight percent of sex offenders are prosecuted in the military, compared to 32 percent in civilian society, according to SWAN. And of those prosecuted, a whopping 80 percent receive an honorable discharge. Apparently there is something commendable about raping your fellow soldier. There have been no activist superstars or superstar activists fighting this injustice, but salience is not always tantamount to significance.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/1/31/military-sexual-assault-dadt/[quote/]
We have already documented that guys are get convicted of rape by coercion,
Since you are fond of clinging to Duke University in many of your posts, you might be interested in how Duke is currently trying to tackle some student practices which many feel are sexist and which serve to reinforce harmful stereotypes. Such harmful stereotypes can promote attitudes supportive of rape
If you want to refer to the military codes governing rape and sexual assault, then post the specific codes you disagree with or wish to refer to. Do you have the same problems with the military codes that you do with the state sexual assault laws?
Under which specific state sexual assault laws? How was "coercion" defined in those laws?
Patricia J. Falk
Cleveland-Marshall College of Law
Brooklyn Law Review , Vol. 64, No. 1, 1998
Cleveland-Marshall Legal Studies Paper No. 1358546
Abstract:
For more than a century, courts, legislatures, and legal commentators have struggled with the controversial and highly charged question of whether accomplishing sexual intercourse by means of fraud or coercion is blameworthy and appropriately condemnable as rape. In 1986 Professor Susan Estrich suggested that rape law should "prohibit fraud to secure sex to the same extent we prohibit fraud to secure money, and prohibit extortion to secure sex to the same extent we prohibit extortion to secure money." (Susan Estrich, Rape, 95 Yale L. J. 1087, 1120 (1986)). Such suggestion spawned the latest cycle of discussion about this age-old conundrum in the American legal academic community. As the cases proliferate and the intellectual debate in response to Estrich's suggestion rages on, state legislatures, riding the successive waves of rape reform of the 1950s and 1970s, have been quietly enacting a comprehensive array of criminal statues outlawing multiple forms of sexual offenses committed by fraudulent or coercive means. The potential criminalization of rape by fraud and rape by coercion is, however, a difficult and troublesome legal development for a myriad of reasons. First, cases involving such acts pose significant definitional challenges for the crime of rape, inevitably implicating the debate over whether it is a crime of violence or a sexual offense and the concomitant issue of the proper function of rape law as either protecting citizens' physical security or, more broadly, sexual autonomy. Second, because these cases generally involve factual scenarios in which physical force is absent and consent, in some form, is present, they strike at the doctrinal heart of rape law, raising issues like: the appropriate relationship between the elements of force and nonconsent, the necessity of physical force, and the parameters of legally effective consent. Third, discussion of these offenses often "trigger[s] common prejudices about the behavior of men and women in sexual encounters" (Martha Chamallas, Consent, Equality, and the Legal Control of Sexual Conduct, 61 S. Cal. L. Rev. 777, 832 (1988)) and reinvigorates colloquy about rape victims' culpability and trustworthiness, deflecting attention from what should be the real question -- the criminality of defendants' conduct. In short, consideration of these offenses pushes the envelope of rape law's function in regulating the outermost limits of sexual encounters in our society.
You would think that Duke after bringing down international shame on themselves and needing to pay large settlements as a results of their actions in the duke players rape case that they would be not be so fast to follow the Feminists over another cliff.
