Another high-profile political name is in the news again for an alleged sexual assault. And no, it’s not Donald Trump. This time, it’s Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas whose name has surfaced–brought up by an Alaskan lawyer on her Facebook page earlier this month. Moira Smith, who was 23 at the time, claims that Thomas groped her at a dinner in 1999.

And while we shouldn’t question why a woman comes forward with a claim of past sexual assault, Smith’s reasoning is worth noting–it seems that the accusations against Donald Trump that surfaced earlier this month propelled her to go public. Smith’s accusations, while certainly pointed at Thomas, also add to a recognizable pattern. Thomas once again joins the scores of high-profile, powerful men who are accused of sexual assault but seemingly never thought they’d get caught. Although it’s also worth noting that this isn’t the first time Thomas has been accused of this kind of behavior–the Anita Hill accusations of 1991 are just as noteworthy. If nothing else comes out of this election cycle and out of these myriad allegations, it seems like there is one, shining potential: we start to dismantle the idea that we should believe powerful men over these scores of women.

So let’s talk about those powerful men. Trump–who is currently not only facing scrutiny over his comments to Billy Bush in 2005, but also multiple accounts of women who say that he groped, sexually assaulted, or attempted to sexually assault them–is probably the first example that comes to mind. But Bill Clinton has also been accused of sexual assault multiple times, an issue that has resurfaced as Hillary Clinton runs for the office. And the conversation about powerful men and what they have previously been able to get away with hasn’t just been limited to political figures. Bill Cosby, once beloved, has now been accused of sexual assault by over 30 women (although, in aggravating fairness, it of course took a male comedian pointing out the allegations to really spark the outrage). Accusations against Woody Allen, while they haven’t stopped him from making movies, have certainly colored many’s perceptions of him.

All of these men have, in a lot of ways, gotten off kind of easily, and the women who come forward with assault allegations are still put through the ringer in the court of public opinion, which will do almost anything to avoid believing them. Nothing new there. But many people are also now backing them up, pointing out the ubiquity of sexual harassment and assault as an American woman.

After the Billy Bush/Donald Trump account surfaced, women started taking to Twitter to talk about the first time they were every sexually assaulted.

ME: 14, molested in pool by family friend. 19, ejaculated on by fratboy while asleep. 23, said NO, got shoved/spit on/called a dyke #NOTOKAY

— Sheila Callaghan (@sheilacalla) October 18, 2016

@kellyoxford birth father forced me to give him a blowjob. I was 11. Told family 2 years later. I was called a liar. #notokay

— Karen Ott Guerinot (@OttGuerinot) October 16, 2016

@kellyoxford 22- boss asked for me to rub his shoulders-then said it turned him on. i left the room and was fired the next day.#notokay

— anita (@peezer01) October 15, 2016

@kellyoxford I was 12 alone with a man in an elevator, he felt up my then not developed breasts. I’ve never told anyone until now. #NOTOKAY

— Dee Harlow (@DWanderlustress) October 14, 2016

Almost every single woman has a story like that. So why is it so hard to believe that powerful men are in some cases the cause? Are they somehow immune from contributing to an issue that is clearly pervasive? How is it easier to believe that women who accuse powerful men are only after their money or fame when it’s been shown time and time again that that’s not the case?

Smith even said she came forward specifically because of the current movement to speak out against sexual harassment and assault. In an interview she explained her motivations saying:

I have an eight-year-old daughter. Before last weekend, I had subconsciously convinced myself she would never go through this and now I know she almost certainly will. I am responsible to help minimize the risks and help her to understand what to do if she does, and to model the behavior that it’s not OK. It has changed my worldview as a mother.

She also said:

We now know that many men in power take advantage of vulnerable women. That willingness by men in power to take advantage of vulnerable women relies on an unspoken pact that the women will not speak up about it. Why? Because they are vulnerable. Because they are star-struck. Because they don’t want to be whiners. Because they worry about their career if they do speak out. But silence no longer feels defensible; it feels complicit.

Smith’s statements are, in a lot of ways, the point: “We now know that many men in power take advantage of vulnerable women.” Maybe the end result of these accusations is that we start treating them more as more than just myths.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are We Finally Going to Start Believing that Powerful Men Can be Sexual Assailants? appeared first on Law Street.

Another college is in the news, accused of mishandling a rape case. A female student at Old Dominion University who reported that she was raped in her own dorm room says she was denied a medical exam until after campus police had interrogated her for eight hours. The assault took place in October 2014 at the Old Dominion University campus in Virginia. Late Wednesday, the woman’s lawyer, Laura Dunn, filed a complaint against the university, accusing the school of mishandling the case and violating federal law.

The woman, who was not named in the complaint obtained by the Associated Press, wrote that she booked an appointment at a local medical center to get an exam after she was assaulted. But when she told campus police about what happened, officers wouldn’t let her leave. They took her to their department where they denied her food, water, and bathroom breaks. They interrogated her for eight hours, asking questions like “do you like rough sex?” and saying, “I’m just trying to find the crime here,” implying that it was her own fault that she was raped.

My alma mater is out here treating rape victims like criminals. And y’all wonder why people don’t come forward. #ODU https://t.co/SJT4MsCZ33

— Kris (@thatkblife) October 14, 2016

The way the campus police treated the student caused her stress and anxiety disorders. “After the entire day of being victimized by your police department, I was left feeling paranoid and scared as if I was the criminal,” she wrote in a personal statement attached to the complaint. The man, who was not a student at the university, was never charged with a crime.

Said it before and I’ll say it again, college “police departments” should be banned. https://t.co/eWseSI028R

— Bryan Beal (@bryanrbeal) October 14, 2016

The complaint accuses the school of violating federal law by not informing the woman of the importance of preserving evidence by getting a forensic exam right away–which she wanted to do, but wasn’t allowed–and not letting her know that she had the right to not report the incident to police until after being examined. She was also not informed that she could seek a protective order against the man, what her counseling options were, or the possibility to change her living situation. She was not even allowed to move out from the dorm where the assault took place until after getting a diagnosis from a psychologist. The school also failed to add the assault to the school’s “crime log” until after a reporter asked about it.

“This validated to me that Old Dominion University never took my sexual assault seriously and does not care for me as one of their students,” she wrote.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Old Dominion Student Who Reported Rape Was Interrogated for 8 Hours appeared first on Law Street.

Donald isn’t the only Trump these days pressing the press for an apology. His wife, the usually silent Melania Trump, is also demanding a retraction and apology from People Magazine after one of its writers alleged the presidential nominee sexually assaulted her.

In an extremely personal first-hand account published Wednesday, People writer Natasha Stoynoff revealed that in 2005–the same year Trump bragged to Billy Bush on an “Access Hollywood” bus that being a celebrity allowed him to grab women “by the p***y”–Donald pushed her up against a wall and forced his tongue down her throat.

Stoynoff, who had covered Donald Trump for years for the magazine, claims that at the time of the assault she had been been interviewing Donald and a “then-very-pregnant” Melania at their home in Mar-o-Largo for a profile on the couple’s first wedding anniversary. After the assault, she says she immediately took herself off the beat, but bumped into Melania later that winter.

“That winter, I actually bumped into Melania on Fifth Avenue, in front of Trump Tower as she walked into the building, carrying baby Barron,” Stoynoff wrote. “’Natasha, why don’t we see you anymore?’ [Melania] asked, giving me a hug. I was quiet and smiled, telling her I’d missed her, and I squeezed little Barron’s foot. I couldn’t discern what she knew. Did she really not guess why I hadn’t been around?”

Apparently that’s not how Melania remembers it.

At 7:15 PM on Thursday, Melania tweeted a copy of a letter addressed by her lawyer, Charles Harder, to Stoynoff and People editorial director Jess Cagle. Harder, who represented Hulk Hogan in his sex tape lawsuit against Gawker, wrote that Stoynoff’s story was “false and completely fictionalized,” before singling out a relatively minor anecdote from the story that his client would like retracted.

! @people #NatashaStoynoff pic.twitter.com/zXNm6boveP

— MELANIA TRUMP (@MELANIATRUMP) October 13, 2016

The letter reads:

The true facts are these: Mrs. Trump did not encounter Ms. Stoynoff on the street, nor have any conversation with her. The two are not friends and were never friends or even friendly. At the time in question, Mrs. Trump would not even have recognized Ms. Stoynoff if they had encountered one another on the street.

The letter demands that People “immediately and permanently” remove the anecdote about Melania and Barron from the article and print a prominent retraction and apology. Harden writes that failure to do this in 24 hours will “require Mrs. Trump to consider her legal options.”

While Melania never admits that her husband assaulted Stoynoff in the letter, she doesn’t deny it either. It’s unclear what Melania hopes to accomplish by arguing that she wasn’t friends with the woman who is claiming her husband “stuck his tongue” down her throat while she was changing in another room. Instead of helping her husband’s hemorrhaging campaign, she may have just twisted the knife further.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Melania Trump Demands Retraction From People, Threatens to Sue appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday President Obama signed the Sexual Assault Survivors’ Bill of Rights; the most comprehensive sexual assault legislation to date. The new bill is a combination of existing laws from different states and will help make sure that rape survivors always know where their evidence is located, whether it has been tested, and the results. Previously, the legislation around rape and the handling of rape kits–the kit with materials and instructions for gathering evidence following a rape–has been unclear and repeatedly criticized.

Rape victims are sometimes even charged for their exam following a sexual assault, which is not supposed to happen. According to federal law, rape victims should not be billed for a forensic exam and necessary medical care. However, sometimes the medical guidelines go beyond what the law covers, and who pays for that part varies between different states. This will be resolved by the new law.

Thank you @glamourmag for reporting this historic day!https://t.co/vSsZpraYcF

— Amanda (@nguyen_amanda) October 7, 2016

.@POTUS just signed the sexual assault survivor bill of rights. Congrats @risenowus & all who work to end sexual assault every day! #ItsOnUs

— Valerie Jarrett (@vj44) October 7, 2016

The driving force behind the new law was 24-year-old Amanda Nguyen, who is a rape survivor herself and took action after her own rape kit was about to be destroyed. After being raped in 2013, she submitted a rape kit to the state of Massachusetts. According to the law she had 15 years to decide whether she wanted to pursue legal action, but the state threatened to destroy her evidence after only six months unless she filed a request for an extension. To ask this of a rape victim so that existing evidence is not destroyed sounds pretty bizarre.

“A global movement is happening & our most powerful tool is our voice.” Amanda Nguyen on Sexual Assault Survivor’s Bill of Rights #2030NOW

— FAWCO (@FAWCO) September 19, 2016

“The system essentially makes me live my life by date of rape,” Nguyen said to the Guardian. It was also impossible to get a straight answer when she tried to find out where her evidence was located. On top of it all, she had to physically return to Massachusetts every six months to make sure the kit wasn’t destroyed.

In a press release on the bill, Nguyen said:

We want to thank President Obama for signing the Sexual Assault Survivors’ Bill of Rights into law today. This historic piece of legislation codifies the federal rights of the 25 million rape survivors in America and serves as a model for Statehouses to adopt.

Here are some of the rights that victims will be guaranteed under the new law:

• The right to have a sexual assault evidence collection kit preserved for duration of the statute of limitations;
• The right to be notified in writing 60 days before the destruction of a sexual assault evidence collection kit;
• The right to request further preservation of a sexual assault evidence collection kit;
• The right to be informed of important results of a sexual assault forensic examination;
• A grant for attorneys general to provide survivors with written notice of what rights and policies they have in that state.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Obama Signs Historic Sexual Assault Bill into Law appeared first on Law Street.

California Governor Jerry Brown has signed legislation ending the state’s 10-year statute of limitations on rape.

Senate Bill 813, filed by State Senator Connie Leyva (D-Chino) amended the penal code so that some sex crimes, including rape, forcible sodomy, and molestation of a child, can be be prosecuted, regardless of how long ago the crime occurred.

Leyva praised Brown’s decision, saying it told every rape and sexual assault victim in the state “that they matter.” “It shows victims and survivors that California stands behind them, that we see rape as a serious crime, that victims can come forward and that justice now has no time limit,” she said.

The sexual assault allegations against scandal-plagued comedian Bill Cosby inspired the bill. Cosby’s accusers testified before the California Legislature to support the bill, dubbed the Justice for Victims Act, before it made its way to Brown’s desk. Dozens of women have accused the comedian of sexual assault dating from the 1960s to the 1990s.

“The Cosby Show” star has denied the accusations, saying his sexual encounters were consensual.

Attorney Gloria Allred, who represents some of the accusers, stated that this was a positive step. “It puts sexual predators on notice that the passage of time may no longer protect them from serious criminal consequences for their acts of sexual violence,” she said.

The new law will not work retroactively, or help those who accuse Cosby of crimes committed more than 10 years ago. It will go into effect January 1, 2017.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Ends Statute of Limitations on Rape with Senate Bill 813 appeared first on Law Street.

Brock Turner was released last week from a California jail after serving just three months of a six-month sentence. He was convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman on Stanford University’s campus last year. His release was immediately met with outrage from people around the country who believed that both his sentence and his time served should have been longer.

Twitter users vented their frustration by mocking the sex offender’s plight with the tongue-in-cheek hashtag #ThingsLongerThanBrockTurnersRapeSentence. While Turner was never convicted of rape–prosecutors dropped the two rape charges after a preliminary hearing–the hashtag uses the term to reinforce the popular opinion that Turner’s assault was tantamount to rape. Here are some of the top tweets from the trending hashtag.

10 Things Longer Than Brock Turner’s Rape Sentence

1. Rogue Hairs

#ThingsLongerThanBrockTurnersRapeSentence — the piece of hair on my ankle i always miss when I shave.

— Kirsten King (@KirstenKing_) September 9, 2016

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Here are 10 Things “Longer Than Brock Turner’s Rape Sentence” Via Twitter appeared first on Law Street.

Bill Cosby.

You used to be able to say that name and conjure up happy memories of family-friendly sitcom episodes, flamboyant knitted sweaters, or pudding pops. But not anymore.

Now America’s former “favorite dad” has become synonymous with drugging women with quaaludes and raping them, after more than 50 women came forward to accuse the comedian of sexual assault. As a result, Cosby is lashing out by filing a defamation lawsuit against seven of his accusers, claiming they ruined his reputation for “financial gain.”

The lawsuit filed Monday is a counterclaim to a civil lawsuit filed by Tamara Green, Therese Serignese, Linda Traitz, Louisa Moritz, Barbara Bowman, Joan Tarshis, and Angela Leslie. The seven women had joined together in a defamation suit initially filed last year by three accusers against Cosby in a federal court in his home state of Massachusetts. According to USA Today, it is currently the largest of the half dozen civil lawsuits filed against Cosby in recent months.

In a statement tweeted Monday, Cosby’s lawyer Monique Pressley wrote,

Mr. Cosby states plainly that he neither drugged no sexually assaulted the defendants and that each defendant has maliciously and knowingly published multiple false statements and accusations from Fall 2014 through the current day in an effort to cause damage to Mr. Cosby’s reputation and to extract financial gains.

My statement re today’s lawsuit filed by @BillCosby against all 7 accusers in Massachusetts lawsuit. pic.twitter.com/XRYoV4gXpC

— Monique Pressley (@MoniquePressley) December 14, 2015

Cosby’s lawsuit comes across as a last-ditch effort to save himself from shelling out a fortune to the dozens of women who claim he assaulted them in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s. Statutes of limitations for rape prevented the 78-year-old from facing any legal charges for the assaults. Therefore many of his accusers have now opted to file civil lawsuits instead. Cosby, however, has repeatedly denied claims of any wrongdoing.

According to unsealed court documents, Cosby testified in 2005 that he had obtained the sedative drug Quaaludes, with the intention of giving them to young women in order to have sex with him. This revelation came as shock to many who had came to the defense of the former star amidst the allegations.

While we’ll never see Cosby criminally charged with assaulting these women, there is some hope for justice in the civil cases currently pending. However, his defamation suit makes it clear that he doesn’t plan to go down without a fight.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bill Cosby Countersues Seven Rape Accusers For Defamation appeared first on Law Street.

Porn’s glorified boy-next-door, James Deen, was once hailed as the adult film industry’s “feminist hero.” The 29-year-old porn pioneer repeatedly rebuked the title, but as of this weekend he can officially kiss the moniker goodbye. Deen has been accused by three female adult actresses and one anonymous woman of sexual assault.

The accusations began after Deen’s former girlfriend and fellow porn star Stoya sent out two tweets Saturday that called out his feminist persona and accused him of rape.

That thing where you log in to the internet for a second and see people idolizing the guy who raped you as a feminist. That thing sucks.

— Stoya (@stoya) November 28, 2015

James Deen held me down and fucked me while I said no, stop, used my safeword. I just can’t nod and smile when people bring him up anymore. — Stoya (@stoya) November 28, 2015

Deen responded to the allegations with his own series of tweets Sunday night reading:

There have been some egregious claims made against me on social media

— James Deen (@JamesDeen) November 30, 2015

I want to assure my friends, fans and colleagues that these allegations are both false and defamatory — James Deen (@JamesDeen) November 30, 2015

I respect women and I know and respect limits both professionally and privately

— James Deen (@JamesDeen) November 30, 2015

But it didn’t take long before two more female porn stars accused Deen of sexually assaulting them as well.

Adult actress Ashley Fires shared her story with the Daily Beast saying Deen is the only performer she absolutely refused to work with. She told the Daily Beast, “the reason I put him on my ‘no list’ was because he almost raped me.” Retired porn star Tori Lux quickly came to her side, recounting her only violent encounter with Deen, where he slapped her repeatedly and shoved her face into his crotch. Both incidents allegedly happened behind the scenes of major porn sets while they were changing or getting ready. Prior to those incidents, both women hardly knew Deen.

Now a reported fourth woman has come forward to LAist.com with her own rape allegations against the porn star. She asked the site not to name her, but instead to identify her using the initials T.M. She told the site that after only meeting Deen once, he forced her to have sex with him in front of a crowd of friends and fans at a hotel party.

So far there have been no formal charges filed against Deen, but the porn industry quickly began cutting ties with the star. The San Francisco-based BDSM and fetish porn company Kink.com has dropped Deen from its roster saying “consent and respect are sacrosanct” for the company and its performers “deserve the ability to work without fear of assault.” The porn company Evil Angel also broke off ties with Deen, suspending sales of newly created scenes featuring him.

Sex toy maker Doc Johnson has ceased production on a dildo molded from Deen’s penis and the Frisky, a women’s entertainment and lifestyle website, has announced that it will no longer publish Deen’s “What Would James Deen Do” sex-advice column on its site. OH Joy Sex Toy, an adult webcomics series, also removed ads for Deen’s website from its site and edited posts featuring him.

Johanna Angel, an alt-porn actress and producer who also dated Deen for six years, tweeted in support of Stoya.

You have my support @stoya . I’m here for you . https://t.co/KQZzHVIwcP

— Joanna Angel (@JoannaAngel) November 28, 2015

He’s dead on the inside and dead to me . He’s literally the worst person I’ve ever met . That’s all I’ll say for now #solidaritywithstoya

— Joanna Angel (@JoannaAngel) November 29, 2015

So is James Deen the Bill Cosby of porn?

Both men were considered role models in their respective fields, before having their reputations tarnished due to shocking sexual assault scandals involving multiple women. While we haven’t heard any stories of him drugging women, it’s the disappointment attached to such a popular star that likens him to Cosby.

In the past Deen has been lauded as feminist for his positive support of female sexuality, and history of making porn films aimed at appealing to women. Now his pro-women persona is kaput.

What’s incredibly sad about these women’s stories is that many of them said that were it not for the stigma attached to sex work, they most likely would have reported these assaults earlier. Unfortunately many people believe that when sex workers are assaulted they deserved it in some way, or it was their fault due to their line of work. However, sexual assault happens to all different types of women–and men–and its important to rally behind the victim, instead of the abuser.

Deen has denied these claims and has not be charged with anything, but the concern is entirely justified. Usually where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 4 Women Accuse “Feminist” Porn Star James Deen of Sexual Assault appeared first on Law Street.

Someone on Bloomingdale’s marketing team is probably banging their head against something hard right about now. Why? Well, the luxury department store made a colossal mistake in its recent catalog with a holiday ad that appears to suggest men should date rape their friends this holiday.

The ad, which promoted Rebecca Minkoff merchandise, depicted a well dressed man glaring at a woman who appears not to notice him, with the caption “spike your best friend’s eggnog when they’re not looking.”

Many Furious After Bloomingdale’s Ad Encourages Men To “Spike Your Best Friend’s Egg Nog” https://t.co/Cj70fjq6OH pic.twitter.com/qGErn3MhAC

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) November 11, 2015

It didn’t take long before people began bashing the franchise, saying the language of the ad condoned sexual assault and rape.

Fascinated that throughout the editing process, nobody suggested this Christmas ad is a bad idea #Bloomingdales pic.twitter.com/zUaNJnlK7y

— Lara DiamondPhillips (@Laradp) November 11, 2015

Here’s Bloomingdales advertising festive date rape and non-consensual drug abuse to sell fashion. Stay classy. pic.twitter.com/7KiPxmyB02 — Jack Monroe (@DrJackMonroe) November 11, 2015

In case it needs saying, DO NOT SPIKE YOUR BEST FRIEND’S EGGNOG. OR ANYONE’S EGGNOG. OR ANYONE’S DRINKS. EVER. #Bloomingdales

— Jack Monroe (@DrJackMonroe) November 11, 2015

C’mon everyone, ideas time: what do ppl love about Xmas? Oooh, chances for festively themed rape? #Bloomingdales pic.twitter.com/dwzLzO3wzJ — Addy (@adriana_lowe) November 11, 2015

#Bloomingdales says to spike a friend’s eggnog when they’re not looking. Horrific and offensive. Especially if it’s in a plain red cup.

— Brian Rush (@BrianRushNYC) November 11, 2015

After realizing its terribly dumb mistake, Bloomingdale’s quickly started apologizing, but some users demanded the company prove its remorse by showing support for rape prevention organizations. Unfortunately since the ad had already been printed and sent out, there is no formal retraction process to help stifle the backlash. 

@Bloomingdales if you’re genuinely sorry, donate profits to a rape crisis centre. — Vicki Lamb (@vix_lamb) November 11, 2015

Most likely Bloomingdale’s won’t go the extra mile by suddenly supporting sexual assault causes, but holding itself accountable is a good first step. It’s important to remember that these companies should be held to a very high standard, especially when the language they are advertising could possibly promote violence.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bloomingdale’s Holiday Ad Suggested Spiking Woman’s Eggnog appeared first on Law Street.

Winona, Minnesota native Thomas R. Page was charged last Tuesday in the U.S. District Court in St. Paul with illicit sexual conduct while overseas. For the past 25 years, Page has been a teacher in Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burkina Faso, Mali, Sudan and Togo. Homeland security started investigating Page in June 2012 in Togo, and discovered that he had assaulted young men while teaching in these countries.

According to the charging document, Page admitted to sexually assaulting two boys while in Cameroon during a 2012 interview with U.S. investigators. In the report, Page described knowing children from the beach and some would visit his house, often staying overnight. He added that he would swim with the children and have them sit on his lap. He also mentioned that he gave the children money, buying them food and paying for school as well. When authorities questioned Page about charges against him in Cameroon, he admitted to having oral sex with two boys and giving money to the boys’ family.

Often cases of sexual assault involving Americans abroad are talked about in the context of a consistent stereotype: a do-gooder or academic Western woman goes to a developing country and is tragically targeted and taken advantage of by a resident of that country, like the case of the American raped in India in 2013. While cases like these are a reality and deserve mass media coverage to spark important conversations, there are many other rape and sexual assault cases that occur abroad that are of equal importance in which the Western party is not the victim. Cases like Page’s are rarely covered in the media, although it is a significant issue in developing countries. Just a couple years ago, an American teacher was arrested in Japan, admitting to similar inappropriate relationships as Page. The nature of the relationship between Western volunteer teachers and their pupils can cause inappropriate situations like this to happen. The pupils often idolize their teachers and are mesmerized by their appearance, knowledge and kindness. Because of this dynamic and the lack of conversations in certain parts of the world about sexual assault in schools, it becomes easy for some predators to find victims.

Protection and education are the keys to remedying issues of sexual assault of children by these volunteer teachers. Educational philanthropic programs that send people abroad need to do just as extensive background checks and interview processes as they would for those applying to be teachers within this country. On the other end, rural schools abroad should be hesitant in accepting foreign teachers, and communicate to children what sexual assault is and means. Necessary action should be taken on both sides of this issue to protect children in developing countries around the world–Page’s case is just one of many.

Kui Mwai

Kui Mwai is a junior at American University, studying Law and Literature. She is from Nairobi, Kenya. Contact Kui at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Minnesota Native Charged with Committing Sexual Abuse While Overseas appeared first on Law Street.

Sharing the details of a sexual assault can be a frightening and invasive experience for a victim, which is just one explanation for why a staggering amount of rapes go unreported each year in this country. The reasons for why these women and men choose not to share their stories are vast, making it a challenge for police to catch their abusers. But what happens when police goad a unwilling victim into sharing her story, only to later arrest her for lying? A rape survivor in Prince William County, Virginia found out.

In a recent in-depth profile by Buzzfeed, Lara McLeod, 23, shared that when she was 19 she was raped by her sister’s fiancé Joaquin Rams–just two weeks after her sister, Hera, had given birth to Rams’ son Prince. When Lara confided in her family about the rape, it confirmed Hera’s unsettling suspicions about her fiancé. Lara’s family supported her decision not to report the rape, but Hera wanted to immediately cut ties with Rams.

Hera called Prince William County police to request an escort to pick up her belongings from the house she shared with Rams, but upon seeing the police, a “confused” Rams starting yelling that he hadn’t touched Lara. That’s when Buzzfeed reports that the routine escort request turned into an investigation for an alleged rape.

Despite her reluctance to report the assault, Lara was persuaded by police to go on record accusing Rams for the rape. However, the tables quickly turned after police began questioning her about specifics in the case like “why she didn’t try harder to escape.” Investigators’ biases on how rape victims “should act” lead them to conclude that Lara was lying, so they arrested her and charged her with making a false report.

Lara McLeod was arrested for reporting her own rape. Later her rapist murdered her n… https://t.co/fNItkxBB1a #news pic.twitter.com/b55oFSsqXn

— [ Police News ] (@InsidePolice) September 28, 2015

Her sister Hera was also charged with obstruction of justice, after allegedly deleting  video footage of her sister’s rape, that Rams had apparently filmed without either sisters’ knowledge. These charges were devastating for the two sisters, especially for Lara who watched as her reputation was ruined as more and more people learned of her supposed “fake rape.” It took years before the charges were finally expunged, but the experience left Lara with deep mistrust for law enforcement. But as reporter Katie J.M. Baker put it, the “worst was yet to come.”

According to Buzzfeed,

In the ensuing battle for custody over Prince, Hera and Joaquin’s infant son, it emerged that not only had Joaquin lied about his name, employment history, and age — he was a decade older than he had claimed — but he had also once been a suspect in his ex-girlfriend’s shooting death and a person of interest in his mother’s death, too, although he was never successfully charged in either case. He had been accused of child abuse by his other son, although never convicted, and ran an amateur porn site.

But thanks to the charges against Hera and Lara, Joaquin was able to portray himself as a comparatively fit parent — and the victim of a smear job. The judge granted Joaquin unsupervised visits. Three months later, EMTs found Prince unconscious on the floor of Joaquin’s house. The 15-month-old died the next day. Months later, Joaquin was charged with capital murder.

This story manages to combine almost everything that’s bad in this world into one perfect storm. A woman was raped, her life was ruined, and incompetence from the legal system led to her baby nephew’s death. The actual intricacies of the case are mind boggling. There was mishandling of evidence, miranda rights weren’t read, and the police involved operated under the bias that many women lie about being raped.

Until this kind of prejudice against rape victims is erased, sexual assault will continue to plague this country, rapes will continue to go unreported, and confidence in our police forces with only continue to dwindle. I hope Lara’s story sparks some change for the better.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Convinced This Women to Report her Rape, Then Arrested her for Lying appeared first on Law Street.

Whenever new research on sexual assault–particularly on college campuses–comes out, it often reiterates the same alarming conclusions from past surveys. Findings like roughly one in five female undergraduate students experience some sort of sexual assault, the fact that most cases of sexual assault are not reported to police or campus authorities, and the relatively high rate of victimization among transgender and gender non-conforming students have been supported by several surveys. However, a recent study involving 27 universities in the American Association of Universities (AAU) confirmed several of these established findings on sexual assault, but it did so in a way that is significantly more beneficial for the participating schools.

The group of 27 schools in the AAU surveyed their students to get a better understanding of sexual assault victimization as well as students’ perception of risks, available resources, and their trust. The combined results are not surprising–23 percent of undergraduate women and five percent of undergraduate men reported experiencing nonconsensual sexual contact (ranging from touching to penetration). This is consistent with recent findings from a Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation poll as well the findings of other national surveys. But what is unique about the AAU study is the fact that it looks at individual universities to see how each is doing, which according to the researchers is a very important way of looking at the problem.

The study stressed that while the average rate of victimization for women is 23.1 percent, the rates for individual schools vary across a wide range. Among the schools studied, the victimization rates for women varied from 13 percent at California Institute of Technology to 30 percent at the University of Michigan and the University of Southern California (for a full breakdown of each school’s statistics see the Washington Post article).

Colleges typically have a very difficult time determining exactly how the issue of sexual assault presents itself on their campuses. With a few exceptions, colleges and universities could previously only use national statistics to understand the problem. Now, the participating schools can see exactly how their students feel about the threats and risks associated with sexual assault on campus, and even more importantly, students’ perception of how their school is handling the problem.

The fact that responses varied widely among universities–particularly those in the AAU, which is comprised mostly of elite schools–indicates that it is important to look at each school individually. Moreover, having a measure that allows for comparison can help administrators and officials understand how their school is doing relative to others.

Although the AAU study is not nationally representative, it still provides some of the best data on TGQN (transgender, genderqueer, non-conforming, questioning, and not an identity not listed) students to date. Nancy Deutsch, a professor at the University of Virginia and a member of the team who created the AAU survey, told FiveThirtyEight, “Information about the TGQN student population hasn’t been as well known, so that was our goal.” Of the 150,072 students surveyed, 1,398 were TGQN, which also reported the highest rate of victimization among those surveyed– 24.1 percent of the TGQN respondents reported unwanted sexual contact.

The fact that 27 schools agreed to participate in this survey is certainly encouraging, but that group makes up less than half of the AAU and only a small fraction of colleges and universities in the United States. While a few other schools have conducted their own campus climate surveys, the questions and methods are not standardized, which prevents comparison between schools.

This study marks significant progress, but also indicates that there is much work to be done. Coming amid a larger push to elevate the issue sexual assault on college campuses and get better data on victimization, the AAU study highlights the extent of the issue. Unlike other studies, however, schools are starting to understand how their efforts to stop sexual assault are working. While measuring the problem is an important step, colleges must now seek to implement and track the success of new prevention techniques.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Schools Take an Important Step to Understand Campus Sexual Assault appeared first on Law Street.

This is the bizarre story of how a Cheshire, England woman was convicted of sexual assault after pretending to be a man in order to trick her friend into having sex with her. If you’re already confused, we’ll try to explain.

It all started when Gayle Newland, 25, created a fake male Facebook profile using the name “Kye Fortune.” One would think that the name alone would scream “catfish” to any reasonable MTV-watching millennial, but instead Newland chatted up females with ease, later claiming that it was easier to meet women that way since she was struggling to come to terms with her identity as a lesbian. Then in 2011 she sent her victim, who has chosen to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, a friend request.

Gayle Newland GUILTY of sexual assault after pretending to … http://t.co/YAbSGBda9q | https://t.co/apGmzF9vUw pic.twitter.com/YFZjhWV5xG

— Nicole Williams (@NcoleWilliams) September 16, 2015

At some point the pair entered into an online relationship, but whenever the victim tried to make plans to meet up, “Kye” would make up wild excuses for why they couldn’t–like “he” was in a car accident and had a brain tumor. Then “Kye” introduced the victim to “his” best friend, who just so happened to be (cue drumroll)….you guessed it, Newland. The women later met up and developed their own friendship. When the couple did finally meet and agreed to have consensual sex, the victim was forced to wear a blindfold and agreed not to touch “Kye” because “he” was self conscious about his body.

According to Daily Mail the complainant told the court,

Every time I met up with Kye Fortune I either had the mask on already or he would wait outside the door and I would put it on. I was so desperate to be loved. It’s pathetic, so desperate for love, so desperate.

Then one day mid-tryst something in her gut finally seemed off, so she decided to pull off her blindfold. She told police officers,

I pulled it off and Gayle was standing there with a strap-on prosthetic penis. I just couldn’t believe it.

Looking back on it she should have seen the signs. She told the that jury that both “Kye” and Newland “shared the same birth date, both liked RnB music and ‘chick flicks’ and both had a dog named Gypsy.”

During her trial, Newman affirmed that her victim knew that she was a female and that they both willingly participating in the role play. However her victim remained adamant in court that she was deceived saying,

If I had known it was a woman, with a strap-on (prosthetic penis), having penetrative sex with me, I would never have carried on. It’s not something that I judge anyone for but it is not something I am into.

The jury found Newman guilty of three counts of sexual assault, and now she could face several years in jail. But from an outsider’s perspective, the guilty verdict came as a surprise. It’s hard to understand how the victim didn’t know that she was having sex with a female, especially when the pair cuddled on several occasions–which involves close physical contact. It’s also hard to understand how Newland could have been found guilty of sexual assault when the sex was consensual. Even the lawyers involved found the case bizarre, saying it was the “the strangest they had ever done,” while the judge described it as “extraordinary” to the jury.

Usually a guilty verdict has a way of answering questions or providing closure to a case, but in this instance, we’re left still scratching our heads over the logistics of this case.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Fake Penis Trial: The Most Confusing Case We’ve Ever Come Across appeared first on Law Street.

Bill Cosby’s fall from grace has taken a new incriminating turn. Recently released court documents reveal the comedic icon formally admitting to drugging women in the past. Unsealed testimony from a 2005 civil suit may finally end the plausible deniability routine that the now-disgraced comedian has used since accusations from over 30 women surfaced. As the evidence and claims against Bill Cosby mount, statute of limitation laws protect him from facing criminal charges in most cases. In light of this, it is important to ask why these statutes exist in the first place and whether they should apply to sexual assault cases.

Recently unsealed testimony from a previous civil lawsuit against Cosby, obtained by the Associated Press, shows the comedic icon admitting under oath to obtaining Quaaludes. He admits to giving the drugs to at least one woman and “other people” with the intent to have sex with them. The 2005 civil case was filed by Temple University employee Andrea Constand, who accused Cosby of sexually assaulting her in 2004. Cosby was not charged with a crime due to a lack of physical evidence, so Constad had to resort to suing him as a means of seeking justice.

According to the unsealed documents, Cosby was asked, “When you got the Quaaludes, was it in your mind that you were going to use these Quaaludes for young women that you wanted to have sex with?” to which Cosby answered “Yes.” He was then asked if he gave women the sedatives without their knowledge, but his lawyers objected before he could respond. Cosby’s lawyers later said that the women knew that he had given them Quaaludes.

Despite the growing number of accusations against him, Cosby has never actually been charged with a crime. This is primarily because most of the alleged crimes took place decades ago, leaving him legally free of charges due to state statute of limitation laws. A statute of limitation is a law that prohibits a prosecutor from charging someone with a crime after a specified period of time has passed. Proponents believe that these laws are to ensure that convictions are based only on valid evidence. Because evidence weakens over time, successfully convicting a defendant years after the fact is typically more difficult. These laws are meant to increase the validity of assault accusations in order to prevent fraudulent claims, and thus prevent an error that might convict an innocent person. Sexual assault cases typically begin with the victim describing what happened to authorities and creating material evidence vital to back up the victim’s accusations.

As of last November, 34 states and Washington, DC have statute of limitation laws for rape or sexual assault charges, ranging anywhere from three to 30 years. For example, charges must be filed within fifteen years of the crime in Georgia, five years in Connecticut, and just three years in Minnesota.

While making a case with deteriorated evidence is challenging, completely disallowing a victim’s ability to seek justice simply because evidence may have deteriorated does not seem fair. Improvements in technology are also slowing down that process, making evidence that was once unreliable much more useful. With more efficient DNA testing, authorities can now test decades old rape kits for DNA samples that previously could not be tested. A rape kit involves a medical inspection of a sexual assault victim and is a very useful means of preserving physical DNA evidence. Improved DNA science has started to give law enforcement agencies the ability to identify rapists dating back several decades.

One case that points to the unfairness of statute of limitation laws is the case of Charles Steele, a man who raped at least four Cleveland women in the mid-90s. The cases went unsolved for 20 years because police never tested the victims’ rape kits for DNA. Evidence collected from the bodies of each victim in 1993 and 1994 remained in storage until Cleveland police tested the kits 2011, leading them to Charles Steele who was already serving a lengthy prison sentence for a different rape. In 2014, Steele received an extended sentence for a minimum of 65 years in prison nearly two decades after the rape occurred. However, one of the indictments against Steele was thrown out due to Ohio’s 20-year statute of limitation law. The crime occurred on March 5th, 1993, but the indictment was issued March 6th, 2013–passing the 20-year limit by just one day. Cases like these are perfect examples of how a victim could be blatantly denied justice because the clock ran out.

As the Cosby controversy and other high profile cases gain public attention, many people are starting to question the validity of these laws. Wendy Davis, a state senator and former Democratic nominee for governor in Texas, proposed the elimination of the statute of limitations for rape and sexual battery cases last year. Davis’ efforts in Texas are one example of the growing opposition to these laws. Lise Lotte Lublin, one of Cosby’s accusers, recently testified at a Nevada Assembly hearing in support of a bill that would eliminate the statute of limitations for rape in the state. Nevada currently has a four-year statute of limitation for rape cases, which precludes Cosby from being charged for Lublin’s rape.

Because of statute of limitation laws, many of Cosby’s alleged victims may never get a chance at justice. Potentially allowing criminals to walk free simply because a certain time period passed, does not make the crime any less vile. Statute of limitation laws were initially created for justice, but now ironically serve as a barricade to it.

Kwame Apea

Kwame Apea is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Kwame at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bill Cosby Rape Allegations Continue: Should We Have Statutes of Limitations for Sexual Assault? appeared first on Law Street.

Student safety is a high priority for all colleges and universities. While colleges and universities are typically safer than the areas that surround them, many schools face important and unique challenges. Law Street’s Campus Crime Rankings were created to serve as a comprehensive look at the safety of our college campuses, and to act as a resource for students, families, and college communities.

Federal law requires all postsecondary institutions that receive federal financial aid to report and monitor criminal offenses on their campuses. Each year this self-reported data is published by the Department of Education to help colleges and their communities understand the safety challenges that they face. Law Street Campus Crime Rankings utilize the most recent three years of this data to determine the average violent crime rate per 1,000 students for each school with available statistics.

Our rankings break up schools into different categories to ensure that the comparisons are as helpful and fair as possible. This list ranks large schools, which include four-year institutions with enrollments greater than 20,000 students.

Click here to see the data used to create these rankings.

Check out the Top 10 Highest Crime Rates on Large Campuses below.

#1 Highest Crime Rate: University of Illinois at Chicago

Image courtesy of Storm9 via Wikimedia Commons

The University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) is a public research-intensive university located in the Near West Side area of Chicago, Illinois. The majority of the university’s reported violent crimes were aggravated assault offenses with 96 between 2011 and 2013, making up more than 71 percent of its total. UIC reported more aggravated assaults than any other school according to Clery Act data.

Craig Moran, an officer at UIC, attributes the high crime rate to a growth in bars near the school. He told the DePaulia, “With the increase of bars and students, there is an increase of crime.” In an article on DNAInfo Chicago, students and professors criticized the university for not fixing broken lights on campus, which they believe contribute to the overall perception of safety on campus. UIC spokesman Bill Burton believes that the number of crimes is not increasing, rather the number of alerts sent to students is. Burton told NBC Chicago, “We’re trying — we’re more active than ever in trying to make people aware of crime as it occurs and what they can do to prevent it.”

UIC has a Campus Violence Response and Prevention Plan, which includes strategies to raise awareness, as well as to identify and prevent incidents of campus violence. The University of Illinois at Chicago Police Department has full arrest authority on campus.

Sherri McGinnis Gonzalez, a spokesperson for the university, told Law Street in an email:

UIC is the only public research university located in Chicago, a global city with a population of more than 2.7 million. As an Urban Serving University in a large metropolitan area, the institution’s crime rate is affected by socio-economic issues and other factors that also impact the city of Chicago. The UIC Police Department, which has a long history of community-based policing, works closely with Chicago Police and other municipal departments, as well as federal, state, county and other public safety agencies.  The UICPD is mandated to report all crimes on or off campus. When reporting crime data, the campus includes Chicago Police Department crime statistics when a crime occurs within the campus Clery geography.

Fall 2013 Enrollment: 28,038 (16,671 Undergraduate)
Average Violent Crime Rate: 1.59 per 1,000
Murder: 1
Forcible Sex Offense: 21
Robbery: 16
Aggravated Assault: 96
Campus Setting: City (Large)

-Campus crime statistics are three-year totals from 2011, 2012, and 2013
-The average violent crime rate is an average of the three-year data shown as a rate per 1,000 students

Click here to see the methodology used for the rankings.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Crime in America team:
Kevin Rizzo, Kwame Apea, Jennie Burger, Alissa Gutierrez, and Maurin Mwombela.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Campus Crime 2015: Top 10 Highest Reported Crime Rates for Large Colleges appeared first on Law Street.

One of the most important problems facing college students today is sexual assault, and a recent poll by the Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation further solidifies this fact. The poll found that one in five women are victims of sexual assault in college. The poll also indicates that very few cases of sexual assault are actually reported to police or campus authorities.

Conducted between January and March, the Post/Kaiser poll surveyed 1,053 college students who live on or near their school’s campus.

According to the Rape Assault Incest National Network (RAINN), 68 percent of sexual assault victims nationwide do not report the crime to the police, and the rate on college campuses is even strikingly lower. According to the Post/Kaiser poll, 72 percent of the respondents who experienced unwanted sexual contact or sexual assault said that they told someone about it. Of that, only 11 percent told the police or campus authorities.

How can a crime as traumatic and prevalent as sexual assault be reported at such a low rate?

A wide range of factors may prevent sexual assault survivors from reporting or even openly discussing the crime that has been perpetrated against them. Victims often remain silent because they fear that the police, school administrators, or their peers won’t believe them. A 2007 study by The U.S. Department of Justice found that 42 percent  of forcible sexual assault victims who did not report the attack said it was because they “did not want anyone to know.”

The fact that most victims know their assailant as well as the fear of being unfairly blamed and victim shamed, particularly when alcohol is involved, can make reporting very difficult. When a victim knows the person who assaulted them it can become very difficult to talk about what happened to friends or authority figures. According to the Post/Kaiser poll, 70 percent of victims said that they knew the person in some way, and nearly 50 percent said they knew the person well or very well. While those who are sexually assaulted are never to blame for what happened to them, victim blaming remains a reality for many on college campuses. This is particularly prevalent when alcohol is involved, which according to the Post/Kaiser poll happens in more than 60 percent of cases.

Finally, victims of sexual assault may not report the crime because it is simply unlikely that the perpetrator will actually receive punishment. According to RAINN, of the 32 percent of sexual assaults reported to the police nationally, only seven percent lead to an arrest, and an even lower two percent were convicted or spend a day in prison. Theories have posited that the reporting rate is so low because many victims believe that a two percent conviction rate is not sufficient enough to go through filing a police report, an invasive rape kit, and possibly testifying in a trial. Federal data also shows that punishment remains an issue on college campuses, as administrators often warn, suspend, or order counseling for offenders rather than expel them.

While the Post/Kaiser poll provides important insight into the issue of sexual assault on college campuses, and the one in five statistic is certainly striking, a lot remains unknown. The factors behind underreporting to the police may also affect the results of anonymous surveys. While these surveys provide a much better understanding of sexual assault compared to the number of cases reported to the police, polls still face their own challenges. Because the issue of sexual assault likely varies between campuses, national surveys cannot help us understand all of the problems that individual institutions face.

As sexual assault becomes an important national issue, colleges around the country are starting to take important steps to prevent assaults on campus. New programs and policies are starting to encourage victims to come forward, raise awareness,  and provide new resources to students. Programs like the Campus Grant Program and the Bystander Intervention Programs are just a few examples that can help reduce sexual assault cases. Last year, a dozen House members called on U.S. News and World Report to include efforts to prevent sexual assaults in its annual college rankings.

The White House launched the “It’s On Us” campaign to increase awareness and empower men and women to actively prevent sexual assault. The Obama Administration is also encouraging the Department of Education (DOE) to proactively deal with the issue using its Title IX authority. These efforts have led the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights to investigate more than 100 colleges and universities for potentially mishandling sexual violence cases.

It’s clear that sexual assault cases on college campuses are a huge problem that must continue to be addressed nationally. As a society, we must take action to deter these crimes instead of blaming victims. Colleges must create an environment where victims are encouraged to come forward and we can all work together to make sure these alarmingly high rates become a thing of the past.

Kwame Apea

Kwame Apea is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Kwame at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sexual Assault: Still a Problem for Colleges appeared first on Law Street.

During this past year the media has paid close attention to Bill Cosby due to the many sexual assault allegations against him. There have been women stepping forward, some named and some anonymous, with similar stories that Cosby drugged and raped them. New York Magazine just recognized these women with its powerful new cover.

35 women of the 46 who have publicly come forward against Bill Cosby on New York Magazine Cover! Powerful Journalism! pic.twitter.com/yQaUEswsix

— John Robbie (@702JohnRobbie) July 27, 2015

Nearly 60 years after Cosby’s first alleged assault, 35 women have come together on the cover of New York Magazine to have their voices heard. The magazine photographed and interviewed the women who have accused the 78-year-old comedian of sexually assaulting them. The story features a combination of videos, photos, and individual testimonies. The list includes supermodels, actresses, playboy bunnies, waitresses, and journalists alongside many other women.

Beverly Johnson, one of 35 women interviewed, on allegedly being assaulted by Bill Cosby: http://t.co/T3DGgjNWI4 pic.twitter.com/ABg3ilTShS

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) July 27, 2015

“I felt ashamed. I was embarrassed to be me.” Listen on Instagram: http://t.co/y8zR8jXEuL pic.twitter.com/VNQySdNUoV

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) July 27, 2015

People have constantly questioned if these allegations were true due to some of the women waiting decades to speak out about it, but many claimed they did not speak out because of the fear that no one would believe them. Barbara Bowman, who accused Cosby of assaulting her from 1985 to 1987, said in an interview:

I could have walked down any street of Manhattan at any time and said, ‘I’m being raped and drugged by Bill Cosby,’ but who the hell would have believed me? Nobody, nobody.

Cosby has denied all the sexual allegations despite revealing in a 2005 court deposition that he gave quaaludes to young women with whom he wanted to have sexual relations. The case was filed by Andrea Constand, a former basketball player and administrator at his alma mater, Temple University, who claimed Cosby drugged and raped her in his Pennsylvania home. Constand was the first person to file a lawsuit against Cosby. After the deposition from that case became public three weeks ago, Spelman College ended its long term relationship with Cosby, along with Temple University, and the University of Massachusetts. “The William and Camille Olivia Hanks Cosby Endowed Professorship at Spelman College has been discontinued,” Spelman’s communications office said in a statement Saturday.

Due to statutes of limitation, civil suits and criminal charges must be filed within a specific time period. If they are not filed within this period, then they can’t move forward, no matter how much evidence is presented. Because most of these allegations describe an assault that took place in 2004 or earlier the statutes of limitation for these cases have seemingly passed and Cosby cannot be charged or sued. However, several of the women have filed a defamation suit against Cosby, claiming that he damaged their reputations by accusing them of lying in their accusations against him. Although there a few cases within the statutes of limitation, the amount of time that has passed and lack of physical evidence would make it extremely difficult for him to be prosecuted.

Despite the legal complications, this magazine cover is still incredibly important. So far, there have been a total of 46 women who claimed that Cosby sexually assaulted them, and 35 have stepped up to be on the magazine. On the cover there is a 36th chair left open for the women who have not yet come forward. The cover has been described as brave, powerful, and brilliant. New York Magazine is giving powerful and recognition to the voices of the women who have stepped forward, and all those who were victimized by Cosby.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bill Cosby’s Accusers Come Together On The Cover of New York Magazine appeared first on Law Street.

Student safety is a high priority for all colleges and universities. While colleges and universities are typically safer than the areas that surround them, many schools face important and unique challenges. Law Street’s Campus Crime Rankings were created to serve as a comprehensive look at the safety of our college campuses, and to act as a resource for students, families, and college communities.

Federal law requires all postsecondary institutions that receive federal financial aid to report and monitor criminal offenses on their campuses. Each year this self-reported data is published by the Department of Education to help colleges and their communities understand the safety challenges that they face. Law Street Campus Crime Rankings utilize the most recent three years of this data to determine the average violent crime rate per 1,000 students for each school with available statistics.

Our rankings break up schools into different categories to ensure that the comparisons are as helpful and fair as possible. This list ranks mid-sized schools, which include four-year institutions with enrollments between 10,000 to 20,000 students.

Click here to see the data used to create these rankings. 

Check out the Top 10 Highest Crime Rates on Mid-Sized Campuses below:

#1 Highest Crime Rate: Howard University

Image courtesy of Ted Eytan via Flickr

Howard University is a private, historically black university located in Washington, D.C. Howard has the highest violent crime rate among medium-sized colleges with an average of 2.88 violent crimes per 1,000 students. Howard reported more robberies than any other medium-sized school with 48 between 2011 and 2013. Howard’s 2012 robbery count was revised last year to include 11 robberies that were recorded by the Metropolitan Police Department.

Two high-profile crimes in the summer of 2013 sparked debate over the safety of Howard students. A Howard senior was shot and killed during a robbery that occurred off campus in July and weeks later a woman was raped in a Howard classroom during the daytime. Even though that murder did not occur on campus and as a result is not included in the Clery Act statistics, the event influenced students’ perceptions of safety on and around campus. In response to these incidents, the Howard and D.C. police departments increased their presence on campus. In recent years Howard has made several attempts to provide new safety services for its students. In 2011, Howard instituted the Guardian system, which allows students to request that the school’s police department monitor them while walking alone. Howard recently started holding mandatory Title IX orientation for freshmen and implemented bystander intervention training to help prevent sexual assault on campus. The Howard University Department of Public Safety consists of both armed Special Police Officers and unarmed Security Officers who are commissioned or licensed by the Metropolitan Police Department.

Fall 2013 Enrollment: 10,297 (6,974 undergraduate)
Average Violent Crime Rate: 2.88 per 1,000
Murder: 0
Forcible Sex Offense: 16
Robbery: 48
Aggravated Assault: 25
Campus Setting: City (Large)

-Campus crime statistics are three year totals from 2011, 2012, and 2013
-The average violent crime rate is an average of the three-year data shown as a rate per 1,000 students

Click here to see the methodology used for the rankings.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Crime in America team:
Kevin Rizzo, Kwame Apea, Jennie Burger, Alissa Gutierrez, and Maurin Mwombela.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Campus Crime 2015: Top 10 Highest Reported Crime Rates for Mid-Sized Colleges appeared first on Law Street.

In 2006, the criminal justice system helped Josh Duggar’s family expunge his record of abuse and protected him from being exposed in media reports as someone who had “forcibly fondled” younger girls (a.k.a. molested children).

Every day–then, now–the criminal justice system targets people of color–especially women and trans people of color–for abuse and shootings (a.k.a. public executions for walking while Black or Latina).

And yet.

And yet we continue to use pictures of him in suits instead of finding pictures that try to reflect him negatively (see featured photo), like the mainstream media insists on doing with young people of color slaughtered by cops.

When Black young men are murdered by cops, they are cast as “thugs.” When a young white man is accused of child abuse, he retains his status as ‘poor cult victim.’

This serves both racist and misogynist ends: white perpetrators remain victims, and his misogyny is cast as an exception (caused by his cultish family).

The mainstream media likes to speculate on the “scandalous” aspects of how the family helped cover up the abuse; how the family, in fact, abused him through their extremism and his isolation from “mainstream culture”; but we don’t like to speculate on how Josh Duggar is not, in fact, an exception. Josh Duggar is the rule.

Duggar is an embodiment of rich white cis male non-dis/abled privilege, and while the control his family exerts over him is indeed frightening, their misogyny is not an exception.

The Duggars may be particularly explicit in the ways they preach and practice misogyny, but what pieces focusing on the cultish aspects of the Duggars that facilitated the abuse miss is that every person in this country–every. single. person.–is raised to hate women. The Duggars may be more explicit than most, but they are not alone: Josh Duggar’s apparent belief that women and girls exist for male pleasure is the same belief that we are all raised with.

It’s called rape culture, and it’s everywhere.

The fact that the Duggars isolated their children so much that they didn’t have a TV misses the point: all of us with TV, too, receive the same message–in a heteropatriarchal society like this one, women are disposable.

Because rape culture is not isolated to “cults.” It is everywhere.

Because women–especially women of color–are disproportionately targeted by the same criminal justice system that protected Duggar when the first police report was issued against him.

Because living in a heteropatriarchal society makes us much more vulnerable to debilitating mental health issues.

Because “strong women” in the mainstream media is still the only trope we’re allowed to hope for.

Because the kind of misogyny that the media ascribes to the cult of the Duggars is the same kind of misogyny that we are exposed to every single time we turn on the television, interact with men in the street, or are educated in a public school system that still focuses on “great” [read: genocidal] white men and does not teach consent as the golden rule in health classes (a.k.a. teach rape culture to all students).

Because we can condemn–or pity–Josh Duggar as much as we’d like.

But ultimately, we must recognize that his privileged positions and entitled, abusive actions are the rule, not the exception.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Josh Duggar is Not an Exception: On Rape Culture in the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

Two female students from Valencia College studying medical diagnostics have recently filed a lawsuit claiming that their classwork at the school crossed a very serious line. The suit alleges that they were forced to endure invasive vaginal exams in front of all of their classmates.

The lawsuit, which was filed Thursday in Orlando, Florida, targets both the college and three of its instructors, Maureen Bugnacki, Linda Shaheen, and Barbara Ball. Both students, who were identified only as Jane Doe I and Jane Doe II, claim they were forced to submit to the examination of their sexual organs via a transvaginal ultrasound “under threat of having their grades reduced or of being blacklisted by future employers” reports CNN.

A transvaginal ultrasound is a procedure used to check for pregnancy, fertility, or other reproductive problems that involves inserting a probe directly into a woman’s vagina. The lawsuit describes the plaintiffs’ experience with the procedure as,

A student would place a condom over the probe and then apply generous amounts of lubrication to the probe. In some cases, the student would have to sexually ‘stimulate’ plaintiffs in order to facilitate inserting the probe into plaintiffs’ vaginas.

The plaintiffs claimed that they were forced to endure these exams weekly and without any privacy in full view of instructors and other students. The lawsuit also alleges that in one instance one of the defendants, Barbara Ball, made inappropriate comments to one of the students undergoing a probe telling her she was “‘sexy’ and should be an ‘escort girl’ (prostitute).”

Peer examinations are actually quite common when studying in the the medical field as they are a way for students to better understand the procedures they will eventually perform on real patients. The lawsuit states that Valencia College had used a second year student nicknamed the “TransVag Queen” to describe the procedure to new students during an orientation for the program. The lawsuit states,

[She] explained the Medical Diagnostic Sonography Program’s faculty believed that students should undergo invasive transvaginal ultrasound procedures in order to become better sonography technicians. Valencia positioned these transvaginal probes as voluntary, but its actual policy and practice was that they were not.

It’s important to remember that this is a pending lawsuit and the defendants haven’t been found guilty. But if these women’s allegations are in fact true then what happened to them is absolutely disgusting and almost definitely qualifies as sexual assault. Sexual assault has unfortunately become a permanent fixture on college campuses that has been increasingly highlighted by the media in several high profile rape cases. However, it’s almost inconceivable to think of it happening in full display of an entire classroom at the hands of an instructor. This may very well turn into a case where the actual details are are difficult to come by, but nevertheless these allegations should be taken very seriously.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lawsuit Claims Valencia College Exams Included Vaginal Probes appeared first on Law Street.

Bud Light, produced by beer giant Anheuser-Busch, is apologizing after controversy broke out over one of the beer’s labels. The brand has been using a number of slogans as part of its “Up for Anything” marketing campaign; however, one sparked a lot of controversy–the phrase that posited Bud Light as “the perfect beer for removing ‘no’ from your vocabulary for the night.”

Bud Light….the perfect beer for marketers about to lose their job. #NoMeansNopic.twitter.com/dLWtDSMhXQ

— Jeff Barrett (@BarrettAll) April 28, 2015

There was a lot of backlash in response to this slogan, as many who saw it thought that it was an inappropriate, if inadvertent, nod to rape culture. The phrase “no means no” has become a popular rallying cry for those combatting the incredibly prevalent problems of rape and sexual assault. So for Bud Light to hint that its product takes away, in any way, the ability to say “no,” struck plenty of negative chords.

Moreover, there are plenty of other things that people should say “no” to if they’ve been drinking–driving, to name just one. This slogan indicates that people drinking Bud Light would engage in activities they normally wouldn’t–and that doesn’t exactly scream responsible alcohol consumption. While Bud Light’s slogan was supposed to be light-hearted, and presumably indicate that its beer would lead to a fun night where its consumers were open to new experiences, this slogan completely missed that mark.

Twitter users took to the social media platform to express a wide variety of reactions, ranging from disgust to mocking.

Sorry AB. NO does mean NO. No matter how much beer. #SoWrong #BigFail http://t.co/OXBbwQd4uq

— Rep. Stacey Newman (@staceynewman) April 28, 2015

Stolen from reddit: “No” always means “No”…especially if the question is: “Do you want a Bud Light?” #terribletagline#UpForWhatever

— TheRealLouisWeiher (@LouisWeiher) April 28, 2015

Bud Light has stopped production of the bottles featuring the slogan in question, although it won’t be recalling the ones that are already on the shelves. The bottles are sold in packs with mixed labels, meaning a 12-pack may contain a few offensive labels, just one, or none at all. Logistically speaking, a recall would have been difficult, which is understandable. Also in response to the backlash, Alexander Lambrecht, Vice President for Bud Light, released a statement:

The Bud Light Up for Whatever campaign, now in its second year, has inspired millions of consumers to engage with our brand in a positive and light-hearted way. In this spirit, we created more than 140 different scroll messages intended to encourage brand engagement. It’s clear that this particular message missed the mark, and we regret it. We would never condone disrespectful or irresponsible behavior. As a result, we have immediately ceased production of this message on all bottles.

It’s good that Bud Light made the call to remove the slogan from its labels, but the fact that it took such a concerted backlash to do so is a bit concerning. While we shouldn’t expect everyone to have an encyclopedic knowledge of every current social movement, “no means no” has been a pretty visible one. The fact that a single Bud Light marketing executive didn’t think of the overall implications of their label is pretty surprising. Bud Light did the right thing by apologizing–hopefully in the future it gives a little more thought to what message it is sending to consumers.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bud Light Removes “No From Your Vocabulary” in Misguided Campaign appeared first on Law Street.

The Columbia University student accused of raping Emma Sulkowicz, dubbed by some “the mattress girl,” has filed a lawsuit against the school, alleging it violated Title IX and intentionally discriminated against him “on the basis of his male sex” by allowing his accuser to repeatedly harass him.

Sulkowicz, a fourth-year visual arts major, has been schlepping around an XL twin-sized dorm mattress–the same kind as the one she says fourth-year Paul Nungesser raped her on their sophomore year–since the beginning of the school year as a performance art protest titled “Carry That Weight.” She has vowed to carry the mattress everywhere she goes until Nungesser is either expelled or chooses to leave the university, and has even said that she’ll carry it to her graduation ceremony if necessary.

Emma Sulkowicz’s Accused Rapist Is Suing Columbia University for Discrimination: http://t.co/Tgt8sHpU0m pic.twitter.com/FNguixD0cx

— Marie Claire (@marieclaire) April 24, 2015

Both she and Nungesser have confirmed that they had sporadic consensual sex prior to the alleged rape, during which Sulkowicz claims he choked and slapped her before forcibly anally penetrating her as she repeatedly said “no.” Despite her claims Nungesser was found “not responsible” for sexual misconduct in a hearing conducted by the university. Now Nungesser’s attorney, Andrew Miltenberg, says that his client’s college experience was destroyed because he was made a “pariah” on campus. Miltenberg told BuzzFeed News,

Columbia should not have, after having found him not responsible, actively engaged in the character assassination of Paul Nungesser.

In the lawsuit Nungesser, a German national, seeks unspecified damages, claiming that this viral scandal has “severely jeopardized” his job prospects and ability to remain in the United States. However, it’s not just the university that he’s suing. The lawsuit also names Columbia President Lee C. Bollinger and Jon Kessler, the visual arts professor that approved Sulkowicz’s “Mattress Performance” project, as co-defendants. Emma Sulkowicz’s name is notably absent from the list of defendants, which seems odd, especially when she’s the source of the alleged defamation and harassment. This could potentially be because the university and university officials have bigger check books than the college student, which would come in handy in the event of a cash settlement.

The most disturbing parts of the lawsuit are the transcripts of conversations between Sulkowicz and Nungesser that were included to establish the type of relationship the pair had. The messages paint Sulkowicz as a sexually promiscuous jilted lover who asked Nungesser for anal sex. The messages have even led some to begin comparing her to the University of Virginia’s “Jackie” who has been widely accused of fabricating or embellishing her own high-profile rape allegations.

With that in mind, we should all be very careful before launching a full-blown character assassination on Sulkowicz based on these recovered messages, even though that’s the very same thing that he’s alleging she has done with her campus performance piece.  Ultimately they do not prove that the pair’s last sexual encounter was consensual, although they do bring up some very valid questions. While this case could end with a settlement, it will probably do little to improve the accused rapist’s reputation.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Accused Rapist Files Lawsuit Against Columbia University appeared first on Law Street.

It was clear when the Charlottesville police department announced that it had found “no substantive proof” to support the UVA gang rape detailed in Rolling Stone’s “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA,” that the magazine had made some serious mistakes in its reporting. As a result, the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism was tasked with investigating the magazine’s story in order to figure out just where Rolling Stone went wrong. The report, which is being called “a piece of journalism about a failure of journalism,” outlines a list of fundamental journalistic failures on individual, procedural, and institutional levels. The controversy has forced Rolling Stone to issue a formal retraction.

Rolling Stone writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely began her article intending to showcase the pervasiveness of rape culture on college campuses using the story of an alleged gang rape survivor known as Jackie. Jackie’s horrific story of sexual assault and her campus administration’s lack of action resonated with readers and launched a national dialogue about rape. But just a few weeks after the story was published, details from Jackie’s story were called into question, leading to a formal police investigation into the alleged rape. While police found that they could not authenticate Jackie’s claims detailed in the article, they did not refute that something had potentially happened to her.

Columbia University followed suit with its own investigation in order to uncover what faulty journalistic practices led to such a scandal. The group summarized their findings writing:

Rolling Stone‘s repudiation of the main narrative in ‘A Rape on Campus’ is a story of journalistic failure that was avoidable. The failure encompassed reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking. The magazine set aside or rationalized as unnecessary essential practices of reporting that, if pursued, would likely have led the magazine’s editors to reconsider publishing Jackie’s narrative so prominently, if at all. The published story glossed over the gaps in the magazine’s reporting by using pseudonyms and by failing to state where important information had come from.

While a combination of failures including fact checking and corroboration attributed to the article’s inauthenticity, the takeaway is that Rolling Stone’s fundamental mistake was that they trusted Jackie way too much. The article’s editor Sean Woods claimed they were “too deferential” to their rape victim stating:

We honored too many of her requests in our reporting. We should have been much tougher, and in not doing that, we maybe did her a disservice.

Working with rape victims can be understandably challenging, especially when there’s the potential to re-traumatize them by having them retell specific events. Despite this, there still needs to be a way to hold sources accountable while preserving journalistic integrity. Rolling Stone failed to provide a balanced account of the events by only featuring the victim’s side of the story. This misstep now opens the door for other articles’ authenticities to be questioned, especially those written by Erdely, or others involving anecdotal evidence.

Surprisingly Erdely and her editors will not lose their jobs even in light of the report’s findings–apparently Rolling Stone views the report’s public embarrassment as punishment enough. However, that decision may not stand with an impending lawsuit against the publication on behalf of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity in the works. Publicly Rolling Stone needs to prove that its credibility remains after this massive disservice to journalistic integrity.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rolling Stone Retracts Story About Alleged UVA Rape appeared first on Law Street.

The number one article at Law Street this week came from Marisa Mostek, our resident authority on the dumbest laws of the United States. And guess what? Alaska and Hawaii are no exception. The second most popular post of the week, from Alexis Evans, is decidedly more serious as the UVA rape allegations that ran last Fall in Rolling Stone were found baseless by the police. And the number three article of the week, from Ashley Shaw, details the case of a criminal who outed his own hiding spot by Snapchatting it to his friends. ICYMI, check out this week’s best of the week from Law Street.

#1 The Dumbest Laws of the United States: Alaska and Hawaii

The last two additions to the family of United States could not be any more different in some ways, for example their opposing climates. However, Hawaii and Alaska are similar in that both possess a unique set of strange and dumb laws. In Anchorage, Alaska, there is a law specifically banning tying a dog to the roof of a car. Perhaps this brings to mind a certain politician doing so a few years back cough Mitt Romney cough. Read full article here.

#2 Police Find No Evidence to Support UVA Gang Rape Story

Last November, Rolling Stone shocked the nation with its 9,000-word article entitled “A Rape on Campus.” The piece told the horrific story of a University of Virginia freshman known only as “Jackie.” She claimed to have been gang raped by seven Phi Kappa Psi frat members during a frat date party. The article accused UVA of a “cycle of sexual violence” and “institutional indifference” that preferred to silence girls like Jackie who reported rape instead of helping them. The piece started an impressive national dialogue about rape culture, particularly rape culture on college campuses. Now after four months of investigating and roughly 70 interviews, police have concluded that the gang rape that reignited a movement most likely never even happened. Read full article here.

#3 Peek-a-Boo! Cops Find Crook Who Snapchatted His Location

There are a lot of stories about idiots who are wanted for one crime or another who get caught through social media. This might be because the police post their searches on Facebook and people see them and report the fugitives’ whereabouts. It could be the girl who posted a video on YouTube talking about everything she had just stolen. Or the guy who posted a pic of himself siphoning gas from a police car. Basically what this shows us is that many crooks are stupid and arrogant, and the man in this week’s story is no exception. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Another day, another Uber controversy. It seems like the popular ride-sharing app will never see the end of its legal struggles. Some of the buzz is positive–Uber recently announced that it’s expanding and beefing up safety features. However, other recent headlines about the company cannot be considered anything but incredibly negative. For example, yet another rape accusation has come to light. Overall, as Uber continues to grow, so do safety concerns, and seemingly, safety features.

Read More: Uber Will Have a Rough Ride in 2015

A Philadelphia woman has come forward with allegations that she was raped by her Uber driver on February 6, and then essentially held captive in the car while he drove around for two hours following the assault. While she evidently brought the claims to the police, Uber claims that it didn’t learn about it until much later. A rep for the company told Philadelphia Magazine, who broke the story:

Our thoughts and prayers are with our rider. Upon learning of the incident, we immediately reached out to the Philadelphia Police Department to assist in their investigation and support their efforts in any way we can. As the investigation continues, the driver’s access to the Uber platform has been suspended.

New controversies for Uber aren’t just popping up here in the states. Two Uber drivers in Ottawa, Canada, recently pleaded guilty to operating unlicensed taxis. There have also been very high profile sexual assault allegations in France and India.

It’s in response to all of these developments, as well as others like them in the past and potential for more in the future, that Uber is launching new programs and initiatives focusing on safety. The additions to Uber’s safety measures will include things like incident response teams to investigate anything that may happen over the course of an Uber ride, and further review of things like quality assurance. The company will also expand its work with law enforcement, including in India where there will be a button programmed into the Uber app allowing riders to directly call law enforcement.

While some of these features seem promising, Uber still sometimes struggles to follow through, as evidenced by the United Nations Women’s partnership debacle from a few weeks back.

Read More: Uber’s New hiring Initiative: Trying to Win Back Women

Uber and UN Women announced a plan to work together to create jobs for female drivers and released a jointly signed letter on Uber’s website. However, after some backlash and safety concerns, UN Women pulled out of the agreement. Some of that backlash included a statement from the International Transport Workers Federation, which stated:

The creation of one million precarious, informal jobs will not contribute to women’s economic empowerment and represents exactly the type of structural inequality within the labor market that the women’s movement has been fighting for decades. Uber’s practices are defined by an aggressive informalization of an industry that was already deregulated three decades ago

It’s clear that Uber wants to make changes, but it’s certainly struggled to do so in the past. Perhaps it’s a side effect of being a young company that experienced a lot of growth very quickly, or just inherent to the nature of a business as informal as ridesharing. Either way, Uber needs to reform–and let’s hope that it sticks this time.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber Adds More Safety Features, But Will They Be Enough? appeared first on Law Street.

Crowd-sourced mobile taxi service Uber has developed a bit of a reputation for having a sexist “bro culture.” A new announcement this morning from the company reveals it’s trying to change that. Uber announced it will be partnering with UN Women “with the goal of accelerating economic opportunity for women.” As part of that commitment, it has pledged to create 1,000,000 jobs for women drivers by 2020. That sounds good, but is this sudden explosion of growth really proof that the company is becoming more female friendly?

A good example of how Uber has gotten a sexist rep is the feud between the company and Sarah Lacy, the founder and Editor-in-Chief of tech website PandoDaily. In October, Uber’s French office unveiled a sexist promotion with an app called “Avions de Chasse” that pairs Uber riders with “hot chick” drivers. Lacy responded with an oped piece on her site criticizing the company’s “Asshole culture,” writing that she deleted the app. She stated she was shocked that this company valued at $18 million “celebrated treating women who may choose to drive cars to make extra money like hookers.”

That’s when Uber execs apparently retaliated in maybe the worst way possible. They hired spies. Yup, spies. Spies who allegedly attempted to dig up information on Lacy to discredit her. While nothing ever real came of it, there was a lot of public outcry against Uber.

USA Today reported that Emil Michael, senior vice president of the business, allegedly said at a dinner party that the company spends $1 million to conduct “oppo research” on journalists. That means digging for any information Uber can manipulate in order to discredit its journalist critics. After public backlash the company made its apologies on Twitter and dropped the promotion.

The controversy with Lacy wasn’t the only anti-female press for Uber. Uber founder Travis Kalanick was quoted referring to his company as “Boob-er” because of all the ladies he pulls due to its success. With comments like that it’s no wonder the company’s headquarters have been deemed a boyish clubhouse.

It only got worse for Uber in December when it was banned from New Delhi, India after a male Uber driver was accused of sexually assaulting a female passenger. Unfortunately, that’s not the only case of alleged Uber sexual assault. In Boston, an Uber driver was charged with sexual assault after inappropriately touching a female passenger while dropping her off in the North End neighborhood. With that in mind, hiring more female drivers could make female passengers feel safer while using the service. In NYC, the app SheRides has already created a business model based on the concept, with an all female fleet that it claims is tailored to the needs of women.

Currently women make up only about 14 percent of Uber’s 160,000 drivers in the U.S., according to the The Huffington Post. This new female hiring initiative would increase Uber’s driving force by more than seven times its current total. Its clear that Uber realizes that referring to itself as “Boob-er” and hiring spies to stalk female journalists wasn’t the best idea. This hiring initiative, however, is a good first step of many that Uber will need to take in order to rid itself of its negative “bro culture” rep.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber’s New Hiring Initiative: Trying to Win Back the Women appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 disappearance and murder of second-year University of Virginia student, Hannah Graham, shocked the residents in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The 18-year-old went missing on September 13, 2014, after moving between parties alone and texting a friend saying she was lost. Police tracked some of Hannah’s movements using surveillance footage and found a tape where she was seen walking with a man, later identified as Jesse Matthew Jr, a hospital worker, who was then arrested on suspicion of kidnapping Graham. Police launched an aggressive manhunt searching for the teen; after five weeks Graham’s remains were unearthed in a rural area just 12 miles from UVA’s campus.

COMING UP: Update on slain UVA student Hannah Graham. Watch live here: pic.twitter.com/3EoYZ3aA6s

— NBC News (@NBCNews) February 10, 2015

Matthew, 33, who has been held by police since September 2014 in connection with Graham’s disappearance, has now been charged with first-degree murder and abduction with the intent to defile. Albemarle County Police Chief Steve Sellers announced at a press conference Tuesday that Matthew was served four indictments Monday afternoon. Besides the murder and abduction charge, Matthew was also indicted on reckless driving counts.

He is scheduled to make his first appearance in Albemarle Circuit Court for the abduction and murder charges on February 18 by video from Fairfax. Matthew is currently jailed there in connection with a 2005 rape and attempted murder he’s been charged with. He will remain behind bars in Fairfax until his trial in March.

Jesse Matthew charged with murder in Hannah Graham case; won’t face death penalty http://t.co/gyCXUSRRbCpic.twitter.com/6Jg4mC5YEV

— The Virginian-Pilot (@PilotNews) February 10, 2015

In addition, he has also been forensically linked to the death of Virginia Tech University student Morgan Harrington, who disappeared after leaving a Charlottesville concert in October 2009. Harrington’s body was discovered in 2010.

Matthew faces a possibility of five life sentences if convicted in both Fairfax and Albemarle counties, but surprisingly, not the death penalty. Had Matthew been indicted on a capital murder charge that wouldn’t have been the case.

Why did prosecutors choose not to file any capital murder charges? Albemarle County Commonwealth’s Attorney Denise Lunsford told CBS reporters:

The decision on how to charge in a specific case is very difficult and often times there are many considerations that going in to charging decisions. I’m not going to discuss the specific facts and circumstances that led to this consideration for ethical reasons, however understand that a great deal of serious thought went into this determination, including the impact on the community, the Grahams and the need to provide Mr. Matthew with a fair trial.

Matthew exhibited a pattern of hurting college-aged girls. In 2002 he was the main suspect in a campus rape investigation while attending Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, but no charges were filed.

It didn’t stop there, because in 2003, Matthew was forced to leave the Christopher Newport University football team he played on shortly after a report of an on-campus sexual assault.

That makes a grand total of five cases where Matthew has been accused of sexual assault. Even scarier, there could be more victims. As someone working in the healthcare field–he worked in a hospital–Matthew could have had the opportunity to victimize countless others that he “cared” for. This man’s horrific crime spree has shone a light on the importance of reporting campus sexual assaults. Had these universities taken the previous accusations against him more seriously, Graham and Harrington may have still been alive.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post State Charges Jesse Matthew for Hannah Graham’s Murder appeared first on Law Street.

Just a few short months ago there were some very serious rape allegations being thrown around based on a Rolling Stone article about a student at the University of Virginia. It was a very traumatic account of a young woman being raped by several young men at a frat party, and that she didn’t report it until telling the story to a Rolling Stone writer several years later. When the administrators at UVA found out about these allegations they shut down the greek community and launched a full investigation only to discover that the story was falsified. Aside from the false accusation, UVA’s response seemed to be a little too late–only after this story got massive amounts of media attention did the school attempt to do anything.

That is not the case in regard to a student at Stanford University. Every news report I have seen calls this accused rapist a “former student,” but that status came about after the school found out about what he had done. Brock Allen Turner was charged with five felony counts of suspicion of attempted rape and penetration with a foreign object.

According to prosecutors, the attack occurred on January 18 when two young men riding their bikes on campus came across the scene of the crime. Turner was seen on top of an unconscious young woman; when confronted by the bikers he tried to run away, but luckily these guys were able to catch him and hold him until the police arrived.

A spokeswoman for Stanford University, Lisa Lapin, stated that Turner voluntarily withdrew from the university and is never allowed to re-enroll. I have a feeling that the school gave him an option and he took it, maybe to save face especially since he pleaded not guilty to the charges just yesterday morning.

Stanford did the right thing by shutting down what could have been a massively negative mark against the school. The best part in my opinion? The school had a resolution before the news even broke and was able to release a statement to news outlets immediately, letting people know that it knew what was going on and already had a resolution from an academic standpoint. Universities everywhere, take note!

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stanford Sets the Standard for How Colleges Should Handle Campus Rape appeared first on Law Street.

Sexual assault on college campuses has been one of the hottest topics for a couple years now. Many universities are being investigated by the Department of Education for Title IX violations. The recent Rolling Stone article about rape on the campus of the University of Virginia that was partially retracted and has landed the publication in hot water over concerns about its journalistic ethics has seriously reignited the discussion. There are a lot of moving parts to the debate about sexual assault on college campuses, and I think that one of the many, many reasons that the conversation gets so easily muddied is that we don’t all agree on definitions, or statistics.

While this is obviously an extreme example, watch this video of “Princeton Mom” Susan Patton who I’m still a little bit sure must be running the world’s longest satirical performance. She begins the video by talking about how rape is no longer just defined as a woman being held at gunpoint and assaulted, and then spends the next ten minutes pretty much going on about what a shame that is. She also thinks that rape is often women falsely accusing men after “regrettable sex.” Then she talks about how it’s women’s responsibility to protect themselves from rape by not drinking, making good decisions, and choosing better friends. It’s a charming exercise in a game I like to subject myself to called “Holy Shit, People Actually Think This Way.”

Now the Department of Justice (DOJ) has weighed in with statistics from a study it conducted, and it’s probably going to all get even more confusing.

The new DOJ report dealt with not just college students, but college-aged females more generally. The DOJ report included the statistic that six of every 1,000 college females are sexually assaulted, and now everyone who thinks like Patton is using it to prove that sexual assault on college campuses isn’t a thing we should be worried about, and that this talk of “rape-culture” is overblown.

First, what we need to do is remember that anytime this sort of study is undertaken–one that relies on people’s word, memories, and stories, rather than say, hard facts in a laboratory–is that it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

There have been other studies that indicate that the rate of college sexual assault is much higher than what the DOJ reports. A survey at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) concluded that 17 percent of female students and 5 percent of young men were sexually assaulted as students. Then there’s the Campus Sexual Assault Study from 2007 that gave us the now-infamous and oft-cited “one in five” statistic.

There are a few reasons why two studies can have such radically different numbers, and they’re excellently detailed here, by the Marshall Project. The main takeaway is this though: neither is necessarily right and neither is necessarily wrong. They asked different questions, they talked to different people, and at the end of the day, it’s really very much an inexact science. We’re not sure how many students are sexually assaulted; more studies to come might help us pinpoint that number, but probably not.

But we do know that at least some are. Furthermore, the same DOJ report stated that eighty percent of students sexually assaulted don’t report it. And 80 percent were assaulted by someone they know. Both of those statistics are deeply troubling.

No matter how many people are being assaulted on our college campuses–whether it’s one percent, twenty percent, or somewhere in between–it’s too many.

But that “less than one” percent is probably going to get thrown around for a while. Because, unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who, for whatever reason, don’t want to see change. They just got some ammunition, for now.

That’s why we need to keep having conversations about rape culture. Why we need to keep educating our young people, and for that matter, all our people, on consent. Why we need to stand up for rape victims when they’re accused of making up their stories. It doesn’t matter how many–any at all are too damn many.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ Stats Show College Sexual Assault Remains Too Prevalent appeared first on Law Street.

The decisions by grand juries not to indict the police officers who killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Eric Garner in Staten Island, New York–both unarmed black men–have sparked a visceral reaction from many Americans coast to coast. In the case of Garner, the reaction transcended partisan politics, with conservative voices such as Glenn Beck expressing disbelief at how an unarmed man being choked to death on camera was not enough to even start a criminal proceeding against his killer, Officer Daniel Pantaleo.

On the other hand, there are those who reject the idea that the system failed these victims and their families, and that these outcomes are indicative of a larger institutional design that disproportionately victimizes black people. They tend to view these cases as “isolated incidents,” unfortunate yes, but perhaps unavoidable in a society where police are confronted with violent crime on a daily basis. Inevitably, they veer into defaming the victim’s character. “It’s not like Michael Brown was an angel. Did you see the video of him robbing that store just before the shooting?” I have even heard some version of these quotes uttered by people very close to me, whose opinions I hold in high regard. Yet, here they are apologizing for murderers.

It is not difficult to see the striking parallel between this behavior and the victim-blaming that surrounds cases of rape and domestic abuse involving women. “Well she was wearing a short skirt” “Wasn’t she drunk?” “Why did she go back to him?” A system designed to protect men at the expense of women will scrutinize the woman’s actions to see what she did to bring such misfortune upon herself, rather than investigating the criminal actions of the male perpetrator. This, in turn, engenders a deep distrust of the system among women and explains why a majority of sexual assaults go unreported.

Similarly, a system designed to protect white lives at the expense of black lives makes it acceptable to blame the black victim of a senseless murder. Whether 18–year-old Brown or 43-year-old Garner were “angels” before their lives were cut short bears no relevance on whether their killers should be held accountable for their untimely deaths. Those who feel these are appropriate counterarguments to an issue that’s been blown out of proportion by the media are products of this system and these are misplaced attempts at appearing “fair and balanced.” That Officers Wilson and Pantaleo may never face a public trial for their actions means that the system worked as it was designed. Unfortunately, this also means that the distrust of law enforcement in black communities was only compounded. Obama’s call for $263 million for body cameras on police may increase transparency, but trust will elude us until we can seek justice in a system untainted by vestiges of the racial caste system that this country was built on.

Kesav Wable

Kesav Wable is an attorney practicing in New York, as well as an accomplished actor and writer. His short film For Flow, an HBO American Black Film Finalist in 2011, was broadcast on HBO/Cinemax, and he continues to develop scripts for the stage and screen. Contact Kesav at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Victim Blaming Nurtures an Unjust System appeared first on Law Street.

Early this afternoon, Rolling Stone released a post entitled “A Note to Our Readers.” It was a follow-up to a story published last month that took an extensive look at rape culture on the campus of the University of Virginia. Although the story was far-reaching, it focused particularly on a young woman named Jackie who allegedly was gang-raped at a fraternity party. I use the word allegedly because even though I believed Jackie’s story wholeheartedly, Rolling Stone has now retracted the article.

“A Note to Our Readers” was spectacularly vague, and in my opinion, put more blame on Jackie than a nationally known and respected news publication, but that’s almost beside the point. You can read the full retraction here, but here’s the part that stuck out to me. For context, it’s important to understand that Rolling Stone never interviewed or spoke with the men Jackie accused, out of an attempt to respect the fact that she was fearful of them. This is the what Rolling Stone included in its note today:

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

There were discrepancies to Jackie’s account–for example, the fact that she may have gotten the date of the party wrong, and so on. I don’t have the information that Rolling Stone does, and they were clearly being purposefully vague–but “discrepancies” does not render the entire story null and void.

Discrepancies are part of reporting, part of crime, and part of life. Jackie was telling this story after the fact and was relaying a traumatized experience. If she didn’t have discrepancies, I’d be more surprised.

And what people want is tidy little narratives from victims. They want perfect and total recall from shocking situations.

— roxane gay (@rgay) December 5, 2014

Our legal system doesn’t demand that every little question be answered and correct–I’m going to make an entirely unfair comparison here, but a grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri proved just a few weeks ago that discrepancies in stories apparently mean jack squat. So why would the existence of discrepancies make Rolling Stone pull their story?

There are a couple of explanations. One is that they’re protecting their asses. They don’t want to get sued. They are businesspeople and they are choosing to protect their business, regardless if it means invalidating a quite possibly real and shocking story.

Another explanation is that Jackie lied, and Rolling Stone didn’t catch it. I don’t want to believe this is true. False accusations are rare–exceedingly rare–but they do exist. A study out of Northeastern University estimates them at about 5.9 percent. That’s of course only out of rapes that are reported–there are far more that aren’t, which means that the people who report false rape vs. people who are actually sexually assaulted are really rare. I highly doubt that this was fabricated, but it’s not impossible. There could be half truths too–Jackie could be telling someone else’s story who was too afraid to come out with it. Either way, I can’t say with certainty but I don’t think this was a lie. And honestly if it was, that’s on Rolling Stone too for screwing up their fact checking.

Because at the end of the day, it should be Rolling Stone we’re mad at. This whole thing is going to encourage rape victims to hide, not come forward and tell their story, unless they can remember every damn detail and prove it. It’s going to shift the conversation from the legitimate problem we have with sexual assault in this country to conversations about journalism. This incident is going to be cited by rape apologists and those who claim false rape accusations until those idiots are blue in the face. It’s going to set us back, there’s no way it’s not going to.

Rolling Stone: you didn’t do your job, and now rape victims are going to pay the price.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rolling Stone Just Set Back Rape Victims’ Progress in America appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street’s top three articles last week covered a whole range of hot topics. Don’t worry if you ate too much turkey and couldn’t keep your eyes open to read them though, we’ve got you covered here. The Crime in America Team’s coverage of the Safest and Most Dangerous States in the nation took the top spot; Noel Diem delved into the complicated world of school dress codes and their effects on students for article number two; and Allison Dawson wrote the third most popular post of the week with a look into the University of Virginia’s move to shut down fraternities while it investigates rape allegations published in Rolling Stone. ICYMI, here are the top three stores of the week from Law Street.

#1 Slideshow: America’s Safest & Most Dangerous States 2015

Alaska is the most dangerous state in the nation according to the latest violent crime data from the FBI. With an increase in violent crime rate from 603 per 100,000 people in 2012 to 640 in 2013–the most recent year for which the FBI provides data–Alaska moved into the number one spot, followed by New Mexico (613) and Nevada (603). Read full article here.

#2 School Dress Codes: Are Yoga Pants Really the Problem?

Anyone who has been inside of a high school in the last five years has seen some interesting fashion choices by today’s teenagers. Teachers are expected to teach to the tests, teach students how to survive in the real world, personalize the curriculum for IEP students of all levels, and still have their work graded within twenty-four hours. And now? Some districts are adding another dimension: dress code enforcement. Dress codes are an important part of school culture, as they sometimes dictate whether or not a student can even attend class. Read full article here.

#3 University of Virginia Suspends All Fraternities After Rape Allegations

You might have missed it with all the huge news events within the last week, but there was aRolling Stone article published last week about a young woman who was the victim of a heinous crime. Seven (yes, SEVEN) young men at a fraternity party raped the woman over a three-hour period. The rape took place two years ago, but now that the story is out UVA President Teresa A. Sullivan has decided to shut down all fraternities until at least January 9, 2015. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street’s top three stories of the week ranged from the truly outrageous, to the infuriating, to the utterly baffling. Anneliese Mahoney  brought us the number one most read article of the week about a Canadian couple who dotted all their insurance i’s and crossed all their doctor’s permission t’s and still were hit with a million-dollar hospital bill when they unexpectedly had their baby while on vacation in the U.S.; Mahoney also wrote about the startling  sexual assault allegations surrounding Bill Cosby and the rape culture in which we’re immersed; and writer Ashley Shaw told the tale of the very worst neighbor you can imagine–one whose dogs dogs killed the neighbor’s beagle so she decided to sue them. I told you it was utterly baffling. ICYMI, here is the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Meet the World’s Most Expensive Baby

A Canadian couple decided to go on a nice, warm visit to Hawaii. Jennifer Huculak and her husband Darren Kimmel were three months away from the birth of their daughter when they came to the U.S. on vacation. Unfortunately, a few days after their arrival, Huculak went into labor and gave birth to a baby girl. Because their daughter was born premature, they racked up some expensive hospital bills. Well, actually, expensive is kind of an understatement. To be more precise, they are being charged $950,000 for the medical care they received. Read full article here.

#2 Bill Cosby Allegations: A Striking Example of Rape Culture

Bill Cosby has, to many, gained the sort of “elder statesman” distinction in the acting world. For all intents and purposes, things were going well for him this year. He signed up to do a new show on NBC and announced a Netflix standup special. Then a comedian named Hannibal Buress did a bit in which he accused Cosby of being a rapist. Read full article here.

#3 Woman Sues Neighbors After Her Own Pit Bulls Kill Their Beagle

I have a quiz for you (don’t worry, it’s only one question, it isn’t math, and it’s multiple choice): If your four pit bulls break through a fence and enter the neighbor’s yard, then kill Bailey the ten-year-old beagle that resides there, what do you do? a. Apologize. b. Offer to buy the neighbors a new dog. c. Both a and b. d. Sue the neighbors for $1 million. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Bill Cosby has, to many, gained the sort of “elder statesman” distinction in the acting world. For all intents and purposes, things were going well for him this year. He signed up to do a new show on NBC and announced a Netflix standup special. Then a comedian named Hannibal Buress did a bit in which he accused Cosby of being a rapist.

Buress was of course not the first person to accuse Cosby of rape. In fact, many of his alleged victims had come forward over the years, starting roughly a decade ago. But because of Cosby’s celebrity status, the allegations had never really stuck. Buress’ point in the video is dead right–many people continue to defend Cosby because of his role in American consciousness as “America’s dad,” or just think that the many, many young women who have come forward with rape allegations are looking for their 15 minutes of fame. In fact, it took another man–Buress–repeating those allegations to even make it into national news.

That’s really just the tip of the iceberg. More and more women are coming forward with their stories–and they all sound pretty similar. Similar enough to make it clear that Cosby used the same M.O. with these women.

These women are finally widely getting support…mostly. Of course, this is America, so we still have a nicely cultivated culture of treating rape victims like shit. I found all of the tweets below by searching “Cosby” on Twitter. It only took me about five minutes. This is why women don’t go forward, and why it’s so essential to stand by the women who have. Because when you come forward you become a walking target for all of this.

Victim Blaming

Maybe women who don't want Bill Cosby's pudding pop in their vajayjays shouldn't be doing drugs naked in his hotel room. Just a thought.

— Todd Kincannon (@Todd__Kincannon) November 20, 2014

Mr. Kincannon, doing drugs does not mean you consent to sexual activity. Furthermore, there is significant evidence that Cosby roofied or drugged at least some of these women. A man who doesn’t want to type out the word “vagina” shouldn’t be commenting on matters that require maturity and thoughtfulness, anyway.

Accusations of fame-seeking

I don't believe Bill Cosby'd rape anyone. My hunch is these women are trying to link their names w/ a consistently successful entertainer.

— R. Deniston (@Obolerfan) November 20, 2014

Most of Bill Cosby's victims refuse to even go to the press, please tell me how all these women are just lying for fame?

— Kill Darren Wilson (@kim_tastiic) November 19, 2014

That’s why so many people have gotten famous through rape allegations. Really, it’s pretty much the way to get discovered now, along with America’s Got Talent and posting videos on YouTube. Never mind that some of these women–such as Janice Dickinson–are pretty well-known and wealthy in their own rights.

There have been a whole bunch of speculative pieces written about how we’ve all been able to ignore these rape allegations for so long. The most convincing argument I’ve heard is that Cosby isn’t the first powerful man, the first powerful cultural figure to face a case like this. Woody Allen and Jerry Sandusky are both good examples. People ignore the allegations out of a mixture of distrust of the victims and respect for the accused.

For those of you who still don’t believe that rape culture exists, well that’s it right there. Rape culture is a well-respected man being given a pass because it’s inconvenient and upsetting to take his 15-plus victims seriously.

Now, Netflix has postponed the standup special, NBC has cancelled the possible sitcom project, and TV Land has stopped showing reruns of the Cosby show. They probably shouldn’t be applauded too much–I highly doubt that any of the networks are doing this because they are convinced that Cosby is a rapist, but rather because they don’t want the bad publicity. And that’s one more good example of rape culture right there–when a woman comes forward with her story of being sexually assaulted, she’s accused of doing it for publicity’s sake; when networks pull the projects of rapists, they get applause.

Things are getting better in the United States. Our attitudes toward rape and sexual assault are changing, bit by incremental bit. But rape culture is still alive and well–just ask Bill Cosby.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bill Cosby Allegations: A Striking Example of Rape Culture appeared first on Law Street.

Recently a video has been making the rounds on my Facebook feed, posted both by people cheering it on and by people questioning the sanity of its producers. The now-viral video features little girls dressed up as princesses and talking about women’s rights. It doesn’t sound so harmless, right? What is so controversial?

The video boasts the title: “Potty-Mouthed Princesses Drop F-Bombs for Feminism.”

Aha.

The video is produced by FCKH8.com, a for-profit clothing company that features t-shirts with mottos like “This is what a #feminist looks like” and “Some kids are gay, that’s okay.” Since its inception in 2010, it has donated more than a quarter-million dollars to foundations fighting for equality, and boast celebrity customers like Ellen DeGeneres, Portia de Rossi, Dan Savage, and Zac Efron. Now, it can add “viral video production” to its list of accolades. It has nearly 100,000 “likes” and more than 400,000 shares on Facebook, and nearly one million views on YouTube.

Watch the video below, and if you are at work or around sensitive ears, I suggest the use of headphones:

Obviously, the first time you watch these little girls swearing like a middle-age man with road rage, it is pretty shocking. We’re not accustomed to hearing proper young ladies use such language!

Here’s the thing: it is meant to shock you. It is meant to grab your attention, and it succeeds. Through all the f-bombs and a-bombs (and I don’t mean atomic), their message is loud and clear: sexism still exists, and it needs to stop.

Or, in the words of one princess, “F*** that sexist sh**!”

Many of the complaints lodged against the video are about the children using curse words. Clearly, though, their parents gave them permission to be in the video, and their message is more important than their foul language. The point is that the rampant sexism and hate in society today is more shocking than girls and boys saying “f***.” Don’t focus on the swearing, focus on the statistics and the facts they are sharing.

Others agree with the message, but dislike the use of children to communicate it. One Facebook commenter said “using children to push a political agenda is one of the quickest ways to lose my respect.” While I agree that young kids should not be forced to share the political opinions of their parents, or stand on street corners holding signs supporting one politician over another, I think these kids do understand — at least fundamentally — what they are saying. They are all old enough to have experienced sexism already, like being told to play with Barbies instead of Tonka trucks or to dress up as princesses instead of superheroes. As the boy featured at the end said, “When you tell a boy not to act like a girl, it means you think it’s bad to be a girl.” Gender roles and sexism are ingrained in us early, and these children are meant to represent that.

One of the big points the girls make is that women are still paid less than men for the same work. Some viewers of the video had a real issue with that, one male Facebook user even posting this ill-informed meme:

The response to this is simple. Companies cannot hire all women for the same reason they cannot hire all men or all people of one race: equal opportunity. Yet, even with this supposed “equal opportunity,” women will be offered lower salaries. The pay gap is real, and by all accounts will not close anytime soon.

“F*** that sexist sh**!”

Along with pointing out the pay gap, they bring attention to the fact that one in five women will be sexually assaulted, using themselves as examples, and saying “Instead of telling girls how to dress, start teaching boys not to f***ing rape!”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

So, go back and watch the video again, share it, discuss it, and look past the swearing. They have to put quarters in a swear jar at the end anyway!

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Children “Drop F-Bombs For Feminism,” Are You Listening? appeared first on Law Street.

The Iranian government executed a woman on Saturday for murdering a man who she said attempted to sexually assault her. After several delays of her execution and despite condemnation from human rights organizations, the Iranian government went forward with hanging Reyhaneh Jabbari.

Jabbari, 26, admitted in 2009 to killing 47-year-old Dr. Morteza Abdolali Sarbandi in self-defense, claiming that he tried to rape her. Sarbandi was killed in 2007, when Jabbari met with him on the pretense that she, an interior designer, would evaluate his office for a renovation, the New York Times reported.

Under Iranian law, Jabbari technically should have been in the clear for killing Sarbandi. As a Slate article explains, the Iranian death penalty doesn’t have to apply in a murder case if the murder was in retaliation to another crime punishable by death, such as rape. Jabbari maintained that she killed Sarbandi after he attempted to rape her. However, the judges are given very broad discretion in interpreting the facts of the case – so broad, in this case, that Jabbari was found guilty.

Beyond the fact that Jabbari’s is technically innocent even if she killed Sarbandi, that shouldn’t even matter considering the circumstances of her admission. Jabbari admitted to the murder “under duress possibly amounting to torture,” U.N. human rights investigator Ahmed Shaheed said in a press release, adding that acts of sexual violence should always be fought, no matter what. Shaheed said that if Jabbari was telling the truth, she was attacked by the Iranian justice system in addition to her assault:

If her allegations are true, Ms. Jabbari may have been doubly victimized; first by her attacker, and then by the judicial system, which is supposed to protect victims of intended and actual sexual and physical assault.

An online petition in March bore more than 240,000 signatures urging Iran not to execute Jabbari. The government then delayed the execution from April until this month. As the new date approached, supporters of Jabbari took to Facebook and Twitter to get attention to stop the execution. The day before the execution,  Amnesty International wrote that Jabbari’s side story wasn’t fairly judged. “Her claims do not appear to have ever been properly investigated,” Amnesty wrote in a blog post.

Iran has one of the highest execution rates in the world. According to an August United Nations report, the country executed at least 852 people, including at least eight who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes, during the period from June 2013 to June 2014. The report says Iranians can face the death penalty for “adultery, recidivist alcohol use, drug possession and trafficking” plus “enmity against God,” which is viewed by the Iranian government as when “a person brandishes or points a weapon at members of the public to kill, frighten and coerce them.”

All this might leave some wondering how hard it is not to get executed in Iran. In the larger scheme of things – for the Iranian justice system, that is – Jabbari is just another number.

—

Zaid Shoorbajee (@ZBajee)

Featured Image courtesy of [The Pondering Moose via Flickr]

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reyhaneh Jabbari: Another Victim of Iran’s Harsh Death Penalty appeared first on Law Street.

Since the arrest in 2009 of Philip Markoff, aka the “Craigslist Killer,” the website has faced increased scrutiny by the media. Law Street decided to take a closer look at the site and its media coverage to see how dangerous Craigslist really is. We wanted to know: Was Markoff’s an isolated act, or an incident on a continuum? Our findings are noteworthy. This marks the first tabulation of all Craigslist murder trials and convictions from 2009 through June 2014. Law Street identified 58 murderers and 45 murder victims connected to Craigslist postings through last June. Twenty-two murder cases are still pending. The oldest pending case dates to 2012, and eight are from 2014, indications that the killings continue. Craigslist did not reply to multiple inquiries.

Click here to read the Killers of Craigslist in single-page format.

[SlideDeck2 id=26861 ress=1 proportional=false]

—

Research and Analysis by Law Street’s Crime in America team: Lexine DeLuca, Jake Ephros, Chelsey Goff, Anneliese Mahoney, Marisa Mostek, Kevin Rizzo, Nicole Roberts, and Trevor Smith.

Featured image courtesy of [Janine via Flickr]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Killers of Craigslist appeared first on Law Street.

Monday again, huh? It’s rough. I’m not even going to try to dispute that. Ease into the work week with a recap of last week’s top stories from Law Street. Blogger Hannah Kaye took the number one spot with an analytical look at the the myth of “stranger danger” through the lens of the disturbing case of Hannah Graham in Virginia; writer Hannah Winsten took it to the people behind #GamerGate and violence against women to earn the number two spot; and I wrote about Starbucks’ upcoming competition to win free coffee for 30 years. ICYMI, check out the top three stories from last week.

#1 The Case of Hannah Graham and the Myth of Stranger Danger

On September 13 2014, 18-year-old University of Virginia student Hannah Graham went missing, and recently authorities arrested and charged 32-year-old Jesse L. Matthew Jr. in relation to the incident. His current charge is described as abduction with intent to defile in the case of Graham. (Intent to defile meaning he intended to sexually assault the victim.) Matthew is currently being held without bond and is scheduled for a hearing in early December. Unfortunately, after two weeks of searching, Graham has still not been found, but authorities are doing all they can to locate her. Read full article here.

#2 GamerGate Takes Misogyny to a Whole New Level

How many of you are big video game players? Probably a decent number of you. I, personally, don’t really get the whole video game thing, mainly because I didn’t grow up with them. My parents had really strong opinions about what kinds of activities made children’s “brains melt out of their ears.” Melodramatic, Mom. But! I’m in the minority here. You guys totally like to relax with a cold beer and a few hours of Madden, am I right? Read full article here.

#3 Starbucks for Life Campaign: You’re Welcome Law Students

If there are two things common to basically every law student ever, it’s this: 1. You’re exhausted in every possible way imaginable and subsisting on caffeine; and, 2. There’s no point in even thinking about the 30 years it’s going to take you to pay off your student debt. Lucky for (a handful of) you, Starbucks announced its new “Starbucks for Life” campaign. Read full article here.

—

Chelsey Goff (@cddg) is Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University in DC. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at cgoff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

On September 13 2014, 18-year-old University of Virginia student Hannah Graham went missing, and recently authorities arrested and charged 32-year-old Jesse L. Matthew Jr. in relation to the incident. His current charge is described as abduction with intent to defile in the case of Graham. (Intent to defile meaning he intended to sexually assault the victim.) Matthew is currently being held without bond and is scheduled for a hearing in early December. Unfortunately, after two weeks of searching, Graham has still not been found, but authorities are doing all they can to locate her.

This case is a tragedy and my heart goes out to Graham’s family and friends. One of the hardest things to understand in this case is recently surfaced reports alleging that Matthew has a history of sexual assault accusations, none of which ended in conviction. According to The Washington Post,

The alleged assaults occurred within an 11-month span from 2002 to 2003 as Jesse L. “LJ” Matthew Jr. moved from Liberty University in Lynchburg to Christopher Newport University in Newport News. Police investigated each report, but neither resulted in a criminal case, according to the Lynchburg prosecutor and a review of online court records in Newport News.

If the allegations of these cases from over a decade ago are true, and with minimal knowledge of the reasoning surrounding the dropped charges, it is hard not to wonder why Matthew got away with such crimes not once, but twice before harming another innocent young girl? These alleged incidents occurred while Matthew was a student attending university, and although legislation and public discourse surrounding campus sexual assault has been under the miscroscope in recent months, I cannot help but wonder how we can act to prevent this loophole?

This case is reminiscent of another sexual assault case with similar characteristics.  In 1996 Amie Zyla, an 8-year-old girl, was sexually molested and victimized by family friend Joshua Wade who was 14 years old at the time. Wade was adjudicated for a misdemeanor in juvenile court. Nine years later, Wade was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison for a series of sexual molestation cases involving the abuse of young children. This case caused huge controversy, and was the driving force behind expansions in the definition of sexual assault.

These two cases indicate the importance of people’s histories and backgrounds. We all make mistakes, and sometimes it is wrong for our privacy to be intruded upon, but with something like sexual assault cases — regardless of whether there has been a conviction — something about this needs to be mentioned. It doesn’t take a lot of common sense to understand how hard it can be to convict a perpetrator of sexual assault. There is often a lack of witnesses on top of fear and upset from the victim; with a case dependent on DNA testing, the odds are very slim. Just because cases may not be tried in court — like Matthew’s two alleged college incidents — it does not mean that they didn’t happen and are not warning signs for things to come.

The media has spent its energy publicizing Matthew’s past. This runs a risk of setting off stricter registration laws for sexual offenders, which have proven to do more harm than good. By broadcasting the background of a perpetrator who was in society seemingly living normally until his arrest for the disappearance of a young girl, I question whether the media is supporting the need to find Graham and bring her home safely, or whether it is striking the ‘stranger danger’ rape myth back into society?

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Case of Hannah Graham and the Myth of Stranger Danger appeared first on Law Street.

Hey folks! How many of you are big video game players?

Probably a decent number of you. I, personally, don’t really get the whole video game thing, mainly because I didn’t grow up with them. My parents had really strong opinions about what kinds of activities made children’s “brains melt out of their ears.” Melodramatic, Mom.

But! I’m in the minority here. You guys totally like to relax with a cold beer and a few hours of Madden, am I right?

Yeah I am.

So! If you know anything about video games, you probably — hopefully — know about how insanely sexist the industry is. Really, it’s depressing.

Only about 21 percent of video game developers are women. Giant Bomb, the largest online video game database, exclusively employs white, straight men. And the characters in video games? They’re rarely, if ever, women — and when they are, they tend to be hypersexualized sidekicks with insane amounts of T&A.

On every level, from who designs the video games, to who distributes them, to who’s featured in them, the video game world sends one message loud and clear.

This is a place for men.

But the thing is, it’s not. Forty-eight percent of video game players are women. That’s nearly half. The world of video games is absolutely a place where women are hanging out, passing time, and spending money. Yet they’re almost unilaterally shut out of every aspect of the gaming world that reaches beyond their personal playing console.

Enter women like Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu. A feminist cultural critic and a video game developer, respectively, these women are two among a community of feminist gaming critics. They speak out against the sexism and misogyny that runs rampant in the video game industry, and on Wu’s part, she develops games that feature corporeally realistic and empowered female characters.

As a result, they both receive violent, sexualized death threats almost constantly. Because obviously, advocating for the video game industry not to be a weird club of circle-jerking white dudes is something that merits murder, right?

Apparently so. This week, those depressingly routine threats of violence reached such a fever pitch that Sarkeesian was forced to cancel a speaking engagement at Utah State University, and Wu was driven from her personal home.

What happened, exactly? We’ll start with Sarkeesian. She was scheduled to give a speech at Utah State University on Tuesday, but the day before, university administrators received an email threatening that a gun massacre would happen if they allowed the event to go on.

Now, keep in mind that bomb threats are par for the course when it comes to Sarkeesian’s speaking engagements. So she’s used to fearing for her life every time she steps out in public, as are the folks who choose to book her to speak at their establishments.

But this time was different. The dude who made this threat sent it out under a pseudonym referencing Marc Lépine, the Montréal shooter who killed 14 women and himself back in 1989. His email reads like something straight out of Elliot Rodger’s diary. And, most importantly, because of the concealed-carry laws in Utah, the folks at USU refused to prevent anyone from bringing a firearm into the event.

So, faced with the prospect of giving a speech to a crowded room full of concealed guns — one of which might be attached to the deranged misogynist who threatened to make sure that all the life-ruining feminists on campus were killed (he literally said that) — Sarkeesian made the obvious decision.

She canceled the event. The lack of security USU was offering left her with no other real choices.

She did.

And this Marc Lépine character isn’t alone. He’s part of a vast community called #GamerGate, which is essentially an online club of gamer boys who haven’t learned yet that girls don’t have cooties. But they aren’t little boys; they’re grown-ass men. And that means that they aren’t just taunting the girls on the playground; they’re threatening to rape and murder all the women in the gaming community who dare open their mouths.

This week, #GamerGate didn’t stop with Sarkeesian. They also attacked feminist game developer Brianna Wu. Frustrated by the boys’ club’s temper tantrums, Wu tweeted a meme poking fun at them.

This was just sent to me, a new meme called Oppressed Gamergater. Love it. http://t.co/Sp9sQPgLxQ pic.twitter.com/6UEWRgPGcn

— Imperator Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) October 9, 2014

The response?

The police just came by. Husband and I are going somewhere safe. Remember, #gamergate isn't about attacking women. pic.twitter.com/ZU6oEVxMGL

— Imperator Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) October 11, 2014

#GamerGate started battering Wu with crazy-train subtweets, threatening to anally rape her until she bled, castrate her husband and choke her to death with his severed penis, and murder all of her future children. Because they were going to grow up to be feminists anyway, so clearly that means they should die, right?

After the threatening Twitter creeps revealed her personal address, Wu was forced to leave her home.

Folks, this shit is batshit insane. The gaming world isn’t the only place where women — and feminist women, specifically — are targeted with a violence and vitriol that’s truly disturbing. Sexism is rampant in the tech industry in general. Just take a look at the wildly sexist (albeit nonviolent) comment Microsoft’s CEO made last week about closing the income gap.

But this week’s events have put the gaming community’s particular brand of misogyny in the spotlight. It’s seriously time this crap stopped.

The men of #GamerGate are threatening to kill women like Sarkeesian and Wu simply because they dare to speak and to work within their universe. They play video games. They make video games. They ask that video game companies hire more female developers and design games with more realistic and empowered female characters.

These are reasonable, nonviolent, nonthreatening requests. They’re only asking for women to be more positively represented in the gaming world.

And yet, somehow, that’s a goal that merits a sexually violent, vengeful death.

This shit’s unacceptable. People of the world — especially you, men of #GamerGate — stop treating the women in your worlds with violence and aggression. We have every right to be here and to demand respect. And if you can’t handle that, we’re kindly asking you to GTFO.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #GamerGate Takes Misogyny to a Whole New Level appeared first on Law Street.

For the last couple of years, any discussion on sexual assault has required a discussion of the way colleges handle the issue, and the national consensus has been that they don’t handle it particularly well. There are dozens of universities currently under investigation by the Department of Education for their sexual assault policies. It is within this context that Harvard University, one of those schools under investigation, unveiled its new sexual misconduct policies.

The new policies have received significant backlash from parts of the Harvard community, particularly a group of Harvard Law professors. An open letter was released by the professors decrying the new policies.

They have many complaints with the policies, but overall they argue that the new policies are far too expansive and stack the deck against the accused. They claim that the policies do not allow due process or fairness. They are also concerned that only one office will be evaluating the complaints, and that that office cannot be guaranteed to be impartial because in addition to “trying” the cases, they are the ones who investigate the cases. Mainly they are worried about the fact the policies seemed to them, to be one-sided, saying:

Adopting rules governing sexual conduct between students both of whom are impaired or incapacitated, rules which are starkly one-sided as between complainants and respondents, and entirely inadequate to address the complex issues in these unfortunate situations involving extreme use and abuse of alcohol and drugs by our students.

The law professors also note the fact that many parts of the Harvard community were not consulted in the drafting of the new policies — including the faculty of the law school.

Concern has also been brought up over the fact that the policies changed the burden that needs to be met. There are varying degrees of burdens — “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the one we’re probably all the most familiar with from hearing it in the courtroom. There are lower burdens though, and Harvard’s sexual misconduct policies used to be based on one of them: “clear and persuasive.” The new rules have shifted the policies to an even lower burden: “preponderance of the evidence.” What preponderance means is really just more likely than not — more likely than not that someone broke a particular sexual misconduct policy.

To say I have incredibly mixed feelings about the entire thing would be an understatement. On one hand, I’m the kind of person who likes to believe in justice. Everyone does deserve a fair trial, no matter how heinous the crime or convincing the evidence.

That being said, the way in which sexual assault has been handled at some of our nation’s universities has been reprehensible at best. Policies do need to be changed, we’re all on the same page here. The real question that needs to be answered now is how?

On the other side of the country, California thinks maybe it has the answer. The state just instituted a new series of policies for its public schools that have been summed up under the phrase “yes means yes.” The law states:

Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time.

This law has certainly received less backlash than Harvard’s, although some are still worried that it’s too harsh on those accused of sexual misconduct. The disconnect puts us in an interesting position — what’s too far and what’s not far enough? I don’t think there’s a perfect answer to that yet. There’s a whole treasure trove of imperfect answers out there: the policies and actions of the schools that are under investigation.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Harvard’s New Sexual Assault Policies Spark Dissent From Professors appeared first on Law Street.

The grunge-pop diva we all know and love (or love to hate), Kesha, filed a lawsuit this week against her long-time producer claiming that he sexually and emotionally abused her for years. The producer, Lukasz Gottwald — “Dr. Luke” — was the one who discovered her at age 17 and convinced her to drop out of high school to pursue a career in music.

According to Kesha, the abuse started early and for the last ten years has kept her from moving to a different label, having control over her own music, and caused her to develop an eating disorder and subsequently enter rehab. She cites at least one count of rape following the consumption of a date rape drug, and alleges that Gottwald sexually assaulted her multiple times while forcing her to drink alcohol and take drugs. Gottwald has since filed an opposing suit, claiming defamation and breach of contract.

This is not the first time Kesha and Gottwald have been the subject of controversy. In 2013, around the time Kesha’s documentary “My Crazy Beautiful Life”  came out, fans started a petition to release Kesha from Gottwald’s control. The petition claims that  “Dr. Luke is controlling Ke$ha like a puppet, feeding her what she doesn’t want, and her creativity is dwindling and affected negativity (sic)” and that Kesha had little to no creative control over her most recent album.

In the short time since the lawsuits became public, skeptics have asked why Kesha waited so long to complain, or if she is just doing this to get out of her contract, and even saying she is lying because how can a sex symbol accuse someone of sexual assault?

These negative allegations aside, the majority of Kesha fans have shouted their support for the singer’s case, using the Twitter hashtag #StayStrongKesha.

An argument could be made for the idea that Kesha is making it all up to get out of her contract, but I just don’t think this is the case here. Her complaint has pages and pages filled with detailed and disturbing accounts of assault that span years. Accusing someone of sexual assault and rape are serious allegations that are not taken lightly, and if the victim is found to be lying the consequences are severe. Kesha is a smart woman, and by many accounts a near genius who was bound for lofty academic achievement before joining the music industry. Her intelligence does not protect her from being taken advantage of, since even the smartest men and women can be overwhelmed when in unfamiliar territory. It seems Kesha’s “mentor” knew this.

Saying that Kesha is lying because of her style, her sex symbol status, or her music is an argument that has no basis in logic. It stems from the idea that because someone dresses a certain way, or shares their sexuality more than others, they can’t cry “rape” when sexual predators target them.

It will be interesting to see how this case plays out, but Kesha and Gottwald obviously have some sort of toxic relationship that needs to end. Regardless of whether her claims are true or not, they need to be taken seriously. It doesn’t matter how famous a person is, or how long they waited to speak up; sexual assault is never okay and victims of it should be supported. Reacting negatively to cases like this discourages people in similar situations from coming forward, and encourages a society in which rape is covered up. Unfortunately, due to her fame and Gottwald’s counter case, Kesha’s fight has just begun.

Both Kesha’s lawsuit and Gottwald’s counter suit can be found here.

—

Morgan McMurray (@mcflurrybatman) is a freelance copywriter and blogger based in Savannah, Georgia. She spends her time writing, reading, and attempting to dance gracefully. She has also been known to binge-watch Netflix while knitting scarves.

Featured image courtesy of [rocor via Flickr]

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kesha Lawsuit: Victim Of Assault Or A Bad Contract? appeared first on Law Street.

A few weeks ago the White House began what it calls the It’s On Us campaign to end campus sexual assault. This campaign is a direct result of last April’s Title IX developments to try and change the way we look at consent and rape. As Vice President Joe Biden so sagely put it: “Violence against women is not a women’s issue alone, it’s a men’s issue.”

Last week the It’s On Us campaign continued its onslaught on campus sexual violence by releasing guidance to draft sexual assault guidelines, handle reports of assault, promote prevention, and outline exactly what “consent” means.

It is a little early to tell whether or not these guidelines and the new focus on changing college rape culture will have a noticeable effect, but since every education institution in the U.S. is legally obligated to follow Title IX policies, I’d say change is in the air.

This is only the beginning, though. While sexual assault on college campuses is more common and also more ignored than elsewhere in society, it is by no means the only place rape culture runs rampant.

But what exactly is rape culture? It’s where rape is widely recognized and accepted as a normal part of society. Where, instead of trying to prevent rape, victims are blamed. Rape, unfortunately, has become normalized in American society. The word “rape” can be heard to describe anything but the act itself, and there has been more than one occurrence of assault recorded and uploaded to the internet. As if showing themselves raping someone will give the uploader fame.

No, college is definitely not the only place rape culture needs to disappear. It is also not the only place that things like the Title IX developments may not be taken seriously.

By the time kids get to college, they have had at least seventeen years of rape culture exposure. They grew up in gender roles that encouraged male dominance and female submissiveness. They grew up being told that a girl who dresses in a short dress is “slutty” or “asking for it.” They watched movies like The Hangover where being roofied was turned into a comedy. When they finally set foot on a college campus for the first time, they had years of societal expectations ingrained into their heads.

Now, while many college students are eager to have their minds opened and changed by their chosen institution, not all are willing to let go of the beliefs they got from their parents and relatives. “It’s On Us” will no doubt have some positive effects on the number of sexual assault cases on campuses, and it is a sure sign that rape culture can be changed, but it is just one of the steps that needs to be taken.

It should also be noted that, along with rape culture existing outside the college campus, women are by no means the only ones who suffer sexual assaults. It is a truth that is not widely acknowledged that men get raped too. But, as I said before, men are brought up to be dominant and therefore are too afraid to admit a woman assaulted them. When we, in the words of Emma Watson, “see gender as a spectrum, rather than two sets of opposing ideals,” assault initiated by both genders, and the rape culture in which those assaults are normalized, will end.

If you would like more information on Title IX and its guidelines, go here.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rape Culture Can (And Must) Be Changed appeared first on Law Street.

The story of Rehtaeh Parsons was a compelling one that hit the media, particularly North American media, last year. She was a young woman from Nova Scotia who was raped in 2011 by four teenage boys while at a party when she was fifteen. A photograph of the assault was taken, and then actively passed around her high school. After the abuse she suffered at the hands of her peers, Rehtaeh Parsons committed suicide last year, but the trial of those involved in her assault and the circulation of the photograph is going on now.

Now if I were in Canada, I could be in a lot of trouble for writing that previous paragraph. The reason why is that there’s a Canadian law that bans the identification in the media of anyone involved in a child pornography case. The media has had to refer to Rehtaeh Parsons’ case essentially in code, writing things like “the victim” or the “the girl” and then describing the case against the young men who sexually assaulted her and then distributed the picture.

It has also forbid the media from mentioning her parents’ names, and the names of the two young men currently on trial for the actions they took against her. But the ban didn’t go into effect until recently, when certain points in the proceedings were reached against the young men. Well after many people around the country had heard Rehtaeh Parsons’ terrifying story.

The ban exists to protect those who are involved in child pornography cases — obviously an incredibly sensitive subject. But in this case, Rehtaeh Parsons’ name was already out there, and her parents think that the ban is actually in place to protect the authorities, who they claim did not do nearly enough to protect her from the beginning.

When the Parsons family first approached the police about a week after her assault and after the photograph was taken, they looked into it for almost a year before deciding to not press charges. They allegedly didn’t do anything to try to stop the spread of the photo. The Parsons family claims that at the time they were told that the photo didn’t even qualify as child pornography. Now their daughter’s name can’t be published anywhere for that exact reason.

The Parsons family also argues that Rehtaeh’s name has taken on a life of its own, and that she would have wanted to be able to speak up for herself and on behalf of future victims. Her parents emphasize the potential strength that Rehtaeh’s name, picture, and identity have as a rallying cry. Leah Parsons, Rehteah’s mother, stated that not being able to use her identity “diminishes the impact and the connection people have with the issue. When people hear her name and see her face, they realize it could be anybody’s daughter.”

The Parsons brought the gag rule before a judge who decided that while Rehtaeh’s name has reached a status much different than the usual child pornography victim, the law stands.

If the facts are indeed what the Parsons allege, I have to agree with them. The law does make sense — in the correct context. This is not the correct context. In an already highly publicized case where the victim’s name has inspired legislation and advocacy, the law seems unnecessary and cumbersome.

But most importantly it takes away Rehtaeh’s voice, which when you think about it, is the exact same thing that happened when her rapists assaulted her, spread that picture, and tortured her. They took away her identity. She deserves it back — even in memoriam — and this gag order law is doing nothing to help her or other rape victims who could find strength in her story.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [val.pearl via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Does the Gag Order on Rehtaeh Parsons’ Name Really Help? appeared first on Law Street.

I was recently married, and my husband is in the armed services. While military life isn’t quite what Army Wives would have you believe, there are definitely some aspects I have had to get used to. One of these is the dress code. Recently I went to the PX (think a T.J. Maxx with Wal-Mart prices) on our new base, and encountered a woman being turned away from the door because her midriff was showing. When I say “showing” I mean her tank top had ridden up about two inches. She did not look inappropriately dressed at all — clearly she had just thrown on her tank and jean shorts to do some shopping — yet she was being told she was in violation of the rules.

This was not the first time I had come into contact with strict military clothing restrictions. While my then-fiance was still stationed in Hawaii, I flew there so we could get married and honeymoon on the islands. While there, I ended up — apparently — being in violation of the dress code not once, but twice.

The first time happened shortly after the wedding, when my husband, some friends, and I went to a bar on the Naval base. It was country-themed, with a huge floor for line dancing, so I dressed accordingly: high-waisted skater skirt, polka-dotted crop top, Keds, and bandana headband. When showing our IDs to the bouncer, he stopped me and said, “Ma’am, you’re going to have to pull your shirt down or your skirt up.”

Now, this was the first time I had had any exposure to the dress code. My husband, not being known to wear crop tops himself, had not yet told me about it. I was understandably confused; barely an inch of my lower rib cage was showing, and my skirt was not short by any standard. Not wanting to cause a scene, I pulled down my shirt and was let in.

My second violation was pointed out when we went to the on-base golf course. I had on pastel shorts from the Gap and a white tank top. Not a spaghetti-strap tank, mind you (which would not have been a violation anyway), but a thick-strapped, loose fitting, high-neckline shirt. The man checking people in took my husband’s ID, wrote us down to tee off, then looked at me and said: “Ma’am, that type of shirt is not allowed here.”

I believe my jaw might have involuntarily dropped open. I looked down at my shirt and back up at him, saying “Tank tops? Or white shirts?”

Not amused by my sarcasm, he informed me that tank tops were not allowed and that to be let on the course I would have to buy a shirt in their shop or go home and change. Excuse me, sir, if I don’t want to buy a $50 Puma polo just to play golf. Needless to say, we did not play golf that day.

My point with sharing these examples is not to say that the military needs to take away its dress code. I understand that there is a necessity for uniformity: it makes things easier to regulate, tampers jealousy, and creates a global standard for all active military and their families. Women are not the only ones who have regulations. Men most certainly cannot be found in cropped off short-shorts. My point is that uniformity is not, truly, the only reason women have their clothing choices regulated.

Personally, I have no problem with the way other people dress. They’re expressing their individual style, wearing what they find comfortable, or dressing up for a special occasion (like going to a country bar). I would never call a woman “trashy” for wearing a tight-fitting dress or 6-inch heels, and I certainly wouldn’t say that lewd behavior toward a woman dressed that way is justified. Believe it or not, women DO NOT dress the way they do for the benefit of men or other women. 

When an organization’s dress code seeks to put a stop to those “trashy” fashion trends, they are encouraging uniformity, yes, but they are also saying that a woman showing her midriff, or her shoulders, is inviting inappropriate attention. That somehow the way she dresses makes it her fault men sexually harass her.

Let me explain. The US military continues to have a terrifyingly high number of sexual assault cases each year, yet thousands more go unreported. They are not, by any means, the only organization that has the same problem. This is a huge issue, and one that will not be solved easily because victims are encouraged to keep their assaults quiet. Dress codes like the one the military has in place are there not just for uniformity, but to discourage sexual assault.

If this doesn’t seem ridiculous to you, let me put it another way. In an episode of How I Met Your Mother, Marshall seduces Lily by showing her his calves. Take a look at this quick clip from the episode:

The scene is hilarious because a woman put into a sexual frenzy by the sight of a man’s legs seems ludicrous. Yet, when a woman goes to report a rape, one of the questions she is asked is “What were you wearing?” As if the sight of her bare shoulders caused a man to force himself on her. Telling women what they can and cannot wear to discourage sexual assault is telling them that, somehow, it is their fault when it happens.

Let’s be clear: WHAT SOMEONE IS WEARING DOES NOT JUSTIFY NOR CAUSE SEXUAL ASSAULT.

So, do I think the military and other organizations with similar dress regulations need to take those regulations away? No. Like I said before, I get why they’re there. What I am saying is the reasons behind those dress codes need to change. Instead of encouraging women to cover up to prevent rape, let’s encourage men to be respectful. Instead of saying “cover your midriff” let’s say “don’t catcall someone on the street.” Only when we acknowledge the problem can we change the perspective.

—

Morgan McMurray (@mcflurrybatman) is a freelance copywriter and blogger based in Savannah, Georgia. She spends her time writing, reading, and attempting to dance gracefully. She has also been known to binge-watch Netflix while knitting scarves.

 Featured image courtesy of [Florian Ramel via Flickr]

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uniformity Isn’t the Only Reason Organizations Enforce Dress Codes appeared first on Law Street.

A 19-year-old Oklahoma teen named Matthew Durham has admitted to raping and molesting young girls and boys on a missionary trip to Kenya. Durham was volunteering with a group called Upendo and living with the children at the time of the assaults.

Why does this kind of story not surprise me? Maybe because White people have been going to the African continent for decades claiming to help, while actually causing serious harm. Whether they’re enslaving us, stealing our natural resources, or claiming our land; White people have a knack for hurting the people of Africa.

Durham was arrested last Thursday at his parents’ home in Edmond, Oklahoma after he fled Kenya due to the allegations, according to the Daily Mail. The founder of Upendo, Eunice Menja, told the FBI that Durham admitted to raping between four and ten children, including one who is HIV-positive, between April and June of this year.

According to KTLA 5, this was the fourth time Durham had visited Nairobi with Upendo, which was designed to help neglected Kenyan children. The organization’s vision statement reads, “One child at a time — while we envision a community with no more child poverty, no more child abuse but every child with each basic need met.” Oh the irony, oh the hypocrisy, it’s too much I can’t handle it.

Now it’s hard to completely blame Upendo. How were they to know that Durham was secretly into little children? But the one question that arose when I read this story was why was he allowed to sleep in the same place as these kids in the first place? He was there to help the kids, not to have a slumber party. So for that Upendo, I believe you failed.

But Durham’s lawyer doesn’t seem to think so. Stephen Jones, the lawyer who defended Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, says that Menja forced a false confession from the teenage boy with “psychological voodoo.”

Yeah, we’ll see how that holds up in court.

Jones went on to say, “I don’t think Hollywood could make up what happened at this so-called orphanage. We’re on the ground in Kenya now. We’re finding out a lot about these people. This place is right on the outskirts of Nairobi. It’s like some cult over there.”

Whether or not this “so-called orphanage” is a legitimate foundation is not the issue here. Multiple children have come forward and said that Durham touched them in inappropriate places or made them watch as he touched other kids in inappropriate places. Now whether or not you believe in voodoo is up to you, but the fact that multiple children have come forward and spoken on Durham’s behavior has to mean something, and while I get that it is your job to defend your client Mr. Jones, it seems to me like you are grasping at air.

Obviously, most of the blame falls on Durham. Even if you are exploring your sexuality you have absolutely no right to explore it with children. Mr. Durham, don’t you think that these kids have already been through enough in their short lives? Don’t you think the daily hardship that these kids have to endure is already taxing enough without you forcing yourself on them? Don’t you think that these four to ten year olds deserved to grow up just a tad bit more before they were introduced to the complicated world of sex? No. You didn’t think Mr. Durham, and for that you deserve to spend a considerable amount of time in prison to do just that.

Mic Drop

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Geraint Rowland via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Africa Gets Screwed Over Once Again by the White Man appeared first on Law Street.

Most of us remember Todd Akin, former Missouri Senate candidate, for his comments about how women cannot get pregnant if they are “legitimately raped.” Unfortunately for him, and for everyone who has to deal with his moronic comments, the fiasco hasn’t ended there. In a recent attempt to explain his 2012 comments, all he did was dig himself into a deeper hole. It’s probably time to just stop talking, Mr. Akin. I mean, I’ve heard from doctors that if you legitimately have stupid thoughts, you won’t say them because your mouth has the ability to shut the whole thing down. Or, in this case, your hand will lose its ability to write a book if you plan to write legitimately ridiculous words.

In his new book (how did he get a publishing deal?), Firing Back, Akin defends his infamous 2012 “legitimate rape” comments and blames the evil media for spinning the whole thing. Someone needs to explain to Akin what spinning means, because he obviously doesn’t know. The media saying exactly what a politician says during an interview is not spin, Mr. Akin. That’s what we call “reporting the facts.”

In what I am sure is a positively invigorating piece of literature, Akin tries to educate his readers about what “legitimate rapes” are. You see, some rapes are not “legitimate” because some women falsely accuse, and when he spoke about a woman’s body shutting “that whole thing down,” he didn’t mean the reproductive system battening down the hatches. Rather, he was referring to rape-related “stress” inhibiting her ability to get pregnant. He does concede that perhaps his wording was a little off.  I feel like I need a Todd Akin Dictionary of Rape Terms to understand this guy’s insane reasoning.

Well, almost…

His comment brings up so many questions: what exactly is “illegitimate rape?” When a woman rejects sex sarcastically? When her attacker rapes her in a certain location? As far as I, and hopefully most other people with common sense know, uteri and fallopian tubes don’t have the capability of self-realization. I’ve never heard a case of ovaries yelling, “We’re under attack! Shut the whole thing down!” to their reproductive-system comrades.

Reviews say that the take away from his new book is that despite his apology immediately following the comments in 2012, Akin is legitimately not sorry. Apology redacted.

But not actually…

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Jennifer Moo via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Todd Akin Needs to Legitimately Stop Talking appeared first on Law Street.

I’m not a violent person. Some may even say I’m compassionate. But if I were to witness the defenestration of George Will, I cannot deny that I would crack a smile.

What has caused such a drastic shift in my nature? Well, the columnist recently published an article in the Washington Post spewing his opinion that colleges and universities “make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges.”

Let’s let that sink in. A Pulitzer Prize winner, Princeton educated, syndicated columnist has stated that being a victim of sexual assault is a privilege. When my eyes were first subjected to that sentence my body went into shock, as I was not sure if I should shriek, gag, or faint from the ignorance. Perhaps the Fox News Kool-Aid is stronger than previously suspected, but this is new realm of revolting that I didn’t think possible.

One of Will’s arguments against the “supposed campus epidemic of rape” is the statistic of women who will be sexually assaulted while in college: 1 in 5. Although the government, nonprofits, and research institutions support the statistics he attempts to discredit, the evidence is still not enough for good ol’ George. Dr. Jen Gunter broke down (accurately this time) the “pesky arithmetic” Will complained about. I recommend that Will and all those who agree with his assessment give it a thorough read.

Schools are more frequently including trigger warnings at the beginning of lectures and assigned readings in an effort to alert people who may self-harm or have their post-traumatic disorder triggered by exposure to controversial readings and assignments. Will scoffed at this concept, belittling individuals who would benefit from the notices. The mocking of trigger warnings was the garnish atop a cocktail already soiled with hebenon.

Four Senators sent a letter to Will challenging his position on the issue of sexual assault. He issued a rebuttal, including this nonsensical gem:

“I think I take sexual assault much more seriously than you do.”

Really? Is he truly going to claim that he takes assault more seriously than four Senators who have dedicated their careers to helping victims; not downplaying the trauma they have endured like he has done?

As an Ivy-educated, affluent white male in America it may be fair to deduce that George Will hasn’t faced too many incidents of sexism or racism throughout his experiences — but that is neither my place nor anyone else’s to presume. Just as I do not know his personal history, he is not aware of the thousands of victim’s experiences he was so quick to demean.

Although offensive and infuriating to read, his column serves as an example of the beliefs surrounding sexual assault that continue to plague our society even when there is evidence to refute them. If any good has come from his piece, it is that the backward way of how victims are viewed is being thrust into public conversation.

I am not the first to voice my disdain for Will’s column, and likely not the last. Just last night the St. Louis Post-Dispatch dropped him due to his comments. Everywhere he turns he should be saturated with vehement rebuttals exposing the callousness of his article.

—

Alex Hill is a student at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital. Contact Alex at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Scott Ableman via Flickr]

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post Dear George Will: Sexual Assault Isn’t a Privilege appeared first on Law Street.

A new study conducted by the University of Missouri finds that those who experience repeated sexual assault are significantly more likely to develop psychological problems such as PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Bryana French, one of the researchers who spearheaded the study, points out that this was only one of a few studies that focus on types of sexual assault that fall outside of the narrow forcible rape definition. The researchers broadened their scope to include offenses like verbal coercion, substance-induced assault, and forcible rape.

Our research focuses on those individuals who receive multiple forms of unwanted sexual advances and the psychological toll those experiences take on the victims.

In general, studies revolving around the topic of sexual assault hone in primarily on violent rape. One of reasons that a study looking at various forms of sexual assault is so necessary is that it could help identify other means of abuse that could lead to potentially lifelong psychological issues. The problems often caused by sexual assault include an increase in risky sexual behavior, lower self-esteem and elevated psychological distress. A better understanding of these incidents, whom they affect, and the issues they lead to can also help develop preventative measures, as psychological damage often results from these unwanted acts.

All Types of Sexual Assault Vs. Forcible Rape Alone

According to studies, there is a huge increase of individuals who have experienced any sort of sexual assault versus violent rape alone. Past findings indicate that one in five adult women and one in 100 adult men have reported being raped. The prevalence increases to two in five among women and one in five among men who report experiencing other forms of sexual violence, such as repeated unwanted sexual contact and sexual coercion.

Repeated victimization, according to a scholarly article on the website for the National Institutes of Health, is disturbingly common. Of the 433 survey respondents, two-thirds reported repeat incidents of sexual assaults.  Though not always the case, these are often committed by the same perpetrator.

What Psychological Damage Can Repeated Sexual Assaults Cause?

A study conducted in 2012 found that the chances of a woman is seven times more likely to develop PTSD if she has experienced repeated episodes of sexual violence. Findings in an issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings found that in addition to a greater risk of developing PTSD, those who were victims of sexual assault could more easily develop anxiety disorders, depression, sleep issues, eating disorders, and are more likely to attempt suicide.

The good news for patients is that physicians are now more aware of the link between abuse and psychiatric illness so that abuse survivors may be more readily identified and referred to specialists for treatment. We hope that heightened awareness in clinical practice leads to improved outcomes for our patients.

-Ali Zirakzadeh, M.D., principal investigator of the Mayo Clinic study

How Can We Move Towards Ending Sexual Assault?

Bryana French suggests that the information gained from this study can help start a conversation among parents, adolescents and school administrators on the importance of consent and what steps to take to encourage preventative behavior.

Various websites discuss tips for preventing sexual assaults in various situations. For example, a page on West Virginia University’s website lists tips on staying safe such as “avoiding secluded places” and “practicing self-defense.” Perhaps equipping people with techniques to avoid sexual assault and educating others on the dangerous effects that these acts can cause will help reduce the number of individuals affected.

—
Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Keirsten Marie via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Startling Effects of Repeated Sexual Assault appeared first on Law Street.

Every two minutes, another American is sexually assaulted. Forty-four percent of those victims are under the age of 18, and 15 percent are under the age of 12. These percentages are quite frightening when applied to the United States’ population of almost 320 million.

That’s why something called Jessica’s Law was passed in 46 states. That’s why Gov. Chris Christie publicly signed the law in New Jersey, which lengthens the sentences for sex offenders who assaulted children, with Jessica’s father present. But who is Jessica? And why are four states lagging behind?

Jessica’s Law

The Jessica Lunsford Act is named after a 9-year-old girl who was kidnapped, raped and buried alive by a twice-convicted sex offender, John Evander Couey, in February 2005 in Homosassa, Florida. A neighbor of the Lunsfords, Couey was known for his long history of drug violations. Police found Jessica three weeks after her abduction, buried in the backyard of Couey’s half-sister’s trailer. Jessica was wrapped in two garbage bags, clutching her favorite stuffed animal; she had just managed to poke two fingers through the bags. Her brutal death led her father, Mark Lunsford, to begin his crusade for further legislation for child protection against convicted sex offenders.

Jessica’s Law focuses on increasing the monitoring of sex offenders and lengthening their sentences. The original bill was passed in May 2005, in Tallahassee, Florida. Nine years later, New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, signed the The Jessica Lunsford Act. He held a ceremonial signing June 2 to raise awareness for the cause after officially signing the bill May 15.

Similar to the Florida bill, the New Jersey law increased the minimum sentencing for aggravated sexual assault against children under the age of 13. Previously, the minimum was 10 to 20 years in prison; now those convicted must serve at least 25 years without parole. The New Jersey law allows a plea deal to lower the minimum sentence to 15 years under certain circumstances outlined by the state Office of the Attorney General.

But some states still lag behind.

Each state’s version of the law varies its specific regulations for sentencing and monitoring. But four states have yet to sign even a partial version of The Jessica Lunsford Act. Mark Lunsford said Colorado will enact its own version of the law later this week, according to the Asbury Park Press. This is not enough.

Lunsford has waged war in the name of his daughter, but he cannot rest, we as a nation cannot rest, until all 50 states sign the bill. He remains a fierce advocate for full passage throughout the nation, as do I.

I deem sexual assault an unforgivable crime; the emotional damage such a crime causes could be enough to destroy its victim’s life. Rape victims are prone to suffer depression and trauma, and are more likely to attempt suicide. For that, perpetrators of sexual assault on children deserve to serve the time for their crimes and to be monitored upon release.

Perhaps the budget is an issue preventing those last four states from hopping on board, but the future generations of our nation should be granted peace of mind. My father and his siblings roamed the streets of the Bronx, NY, without fear in the 1950s; nowadays helicopter moms fear turning their backs on their children for just a moment in public.

Justice for tomorrow’s Jessicas

The nationwide recognition of this bill would signify further protection for our nation’s children by declaring sexual assault on a child a first degree crime. The necessity to ensure children’s security from sexual predators can be seen from the startling sexual assault statistics in this land of the free.

So, I stand with Mr. Lunsford. We must make it known from the Pacific to the Atlantic, that sexual assault is unacceptable. The installation of this bill in all fifty states means a higher possibility of lowering the percentage of children who are sexually assaulted.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [theodoritis via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jessica’s Law Should be Law of the Land appeared first on Law Street.

It was difficult to discern reality from fantasy in Tallahassee last winter. Jameis Winston, the college football phenom who was leading Florida State to an undefeated season, was dealt a hard dose of real word problems when he was investigated for sexual assault in November.  If charged, he would likely face suspension, and FSU’s dream of becoming national champions would remain fantasy. In December however, Winston was cleared and no charges transpired. The following week, Winston won the Heisman Trophy, and a few weeks later he led his team to a dramatic victory to claim the national championship. It appeared that reality was indeed sweet, and the rape investigation was simply a bad dream. Or was it?

On April 3, the Federal Department of Education (DOE) announced that they would be investigating FSU for whether they improperly handled the Jameis Winston sexual assault case. Under the landmark legislation known as Title IX, universities are required to “promptly investigate” reports of sexual assault. FSU may not have investigated quickly enough, according to the DOE.

FSU’s alleged failings were highlighted on April 16, when the New York Times published an article detailing the missteps of both the University and the Tallahassee Police Department, and charging that the University didn’t investigate when they initially found out about the alleged incident in January 2013.

FSU fired back at the New York Times, claiming in part that “no university official outside the Victim Advocate Program received a report from any complainant naming Winston prior to when the allegations were made public in November 2013.” At first glance, the statement would seem to exonerate the University. On closer inspection, a rather high burden is placed on the victim in order for FSU to comply with Title IX. Must a university official receive a report from the complainant in order to investigate? Must an accuser be named in order to investigate?

A cursory look at the DOE’s guidelines on sexual assault suggest no. In fact, the following line seems to suggest that schools err on the side of caution:

“…if a school knows or reasonably should know about possible sexual harassment or sexual violence, it must promptly investigate to determine what occurred…”

It is possible that Winston’s accuser failed to tell anyone employed by the University about her assault. After all,Tallahassee police primarily handled the report because the incident happened off campus. I called both the Tallahassee Police Department and the Florida State University Police Department (FSUPD)  to follow up on this matter. I asked if there is a policy requiring that arresting officers, whether employed by the school or by the city of Tallahassee, notify the University upon arresting an enrolled student. FSUPD responded that it is practice for all officers to report student-arrests to the University, at which point the University handles any academic penalties according to the student conduct code.

Is it possible that Tallahassee Police report to the University only student-arrests and not allegations of sexual assault on students? The logic behind such a policy may be difficult for DOE investigators to understand, as would the general excuse that although the Tallahassee Police Department knew of a fairly detailed sexual assault accusation on an FSU student since December 2012, the University did not know until the following November.

In the ensuing months, one if not both institutions will be to blame. Either the Tallahassee Police failed to tell FSU, or FSU failed to investigate when they were told by police. If it’s the latter, expect harsh penalties from both the Department of Education and the NCAA. If FSU football thinks they’ll avoid that reality, they better wake up.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Zennie Abraham via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post Did FSU Drop the Ball on Jameis Winston Rape Case? DOE Investigates appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street’s inaugural Crime in America rankings, based on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Statistics, were published last fall. As we prepare for updates of those statistics this week, it’s important to revisit the way in which the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) handles the reporting of rape cases.

The FBI has long been criticized on this topic. For years, the Bureau used an archaic definition of rape, stating it was “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” Obviously that excludes a large number of various sexual-based offenses, and gives a false impression of the sexual assault that happens in the United States. After intense lobbying and criticism, the FBI made moves to amend this definition. Now it reads, “the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” This definition went into effect in on January 1, 2013, and given that the data being released this week is from January through June 2013, this is the first time we’ll see the impact of the new definition.

I use “see” as a very subjective term though, because I honestly don’t have a prediction for how this may or may not change the rape statistics we see in the Uniform Crime Report. Common sense would indicate that there would be an uptick in reported rapes, given that the definition is now more inclusive. That being said, rape is such a difficult and sensitive issue that it’s long been predicted that rapes are underreported partly because of FBI statistics, but possibly even more because of societal pressures and victim shaming. A study by the National Research Council during the winter of 2013 reported that rape statistics are so bad and inaccurate in the United States because of a combination of bad definitions (such as the FBI’s old definition) but also because of underreporting. This definition will certainly tackle one of those problems, but sexual assault incidents that aren’t brought to the police obviously will still not be included in the statistics.

There will also probably be a few years of mixed data as agencies work to implement this definition. The Uniform Crime Report and FBI data is somewhat constrained by the states, and inconsistencies abound. For example, if you look through our 2012 crime rankings, the city of Chicago is excluded because of its  different reporting practices. The new definition of rape is no exception — it will presumably be inconsistent at the state level for at least a couple years. Some of the inconsistencies will indubitably stem from the fact that there are currently two different ways that states report crimes to the FBI. Some use a summary-like method that is pretty basic. It allows a state to give an amalgamation of the crimes reported. However, fourteen states use the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) which allows for significantly more specific reporting. Another 21 states submit data partially to the NIBRS. The NIBRS already was using a more updated version of rape, so that data will now be able to be used fully in the Uniform Crime Report. As for states that report via the summary system, they are given some time to implement rape reporting under the new definition. This all sounds very complicated, and in a lot of ways it is. While the FBI is definitely moving in the right direction with this, I’m predicting a few years of confusion and inconsistencies as the process of reporting rape and sexual crimes becomes more centralized.

Before the Uniform Crime Report statistics come out, some states or cities do release their individual findings. In the few that I have found, whether rape will increase because of this definition seems inconclusive. In Rochester, NY, reported rapes fell slightly. However, there’s no telling whether that is based on the fact that Rochester, NY has always reported their rape statistics based on their definition, and then the UCR edited them to only reflect the old FBI definition, or whether the change in definition really didn’t have an effect.

Therein lies the larger problem. We can talk about getting accurate statistics all we like, but quite frankly, the way that the state governments and Federal government handle rape reporting is messy at best. I can assure you that the statistics reported within this new definition will be better, but they still won’t be good enough or truly reflective of the problem. Until we really do have a unified effort to figure out how, when, and why sexual crimes occur, the rape statistics should be taken with a grain of salt.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Click here to read FBI’s new definition of rape.

Click here to read more Crime in America coverage.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Redefining Rape: The FBI’s Latest Statistics appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, what is going on with Woody Allen these days?

In case you’ve missed all the drama amid the #SochiFailympics, here’s a quick recap of what’s been happening. Woody Allen was given a lifetime achievement award at The Golden Globes last month, to which his ex, Mia Farrow, and her son, Ronan, responded with this:

Time to grab some icecream & switch over to #GIRLS

— mia farrow (@MiaFarrow) January 13, 2014

Missed the Woody Allen tribute – did they put the part where a woman publicly confirmed he molested her at age 7 before or after Annie Hall?

— Ronan Farrow (@RonanFarrow) January 13, 2014

Some passive aggressive Twitter rage, I see! Understandable, considering Woody Allen allegedly molested Dylan Farrow, daughter and sister of the two subtweeting Farrows. Of course, the world exploded. Along with the responses of a handful of celebrities and everyone on Twitter, Dylan spoke out for herself.

Detailing the trauma of childhood sexual assault at the hands of a celebrity in an open letter published in the New York Times, Dylan wrote, “[I] imagine your seven-year-old daughter being led into an attic by Woody Allen. Imagine she spends a lifetime stricken with nausea at the mention of his name. Imagine a world that celebrates her tormenter…Woody Allen is a living testament to the way our society fails the survivors of sexual assault and abuse.”

That’s some powerful, powerful shit. Not that it shut down any of the men’s rights, Woody Allen apologists for half a second.

First there was this op-ed, by Woody Allen’s BFF. Its nauseating smugness actually makes me want to barf. Then, there was Woody Allen’s own response, in which he minimizes and distorts his own douchebaggery to smear his ex Mia as a loony-tune woman scorned. On the same day, Vanity Fair published a list of fully fact-checked, indisputable truths about the highly contested case, and then, one day later, Dylan issued her own re-response.

Phew. It’s been a rough few weeks for the Farrows and the Allens and all of us in between. You think your own family feuds are intense? At least they don’t play out in the news, am I right?

THANK GOODNESS.

But despite the fact that I’m trying to keep this light, this Woody Allen/Dylan Farrow fiasco is no joke. This is some serious, serious shit. Especially because what really happened in that attic is so hotly contested.

Folks, a lot has been written about this case, and here’s what most of it comes down to — none of us were there. As third-party bystanders, all of our information is secondhand. So, we each have to choose what to believe, for ourselves.

You can choose to believe Woody and his story about a vengeful, manipulative ex-girlfriend who’s willing to psychologically abuse her children in order to get back at him.

Or, you can believe Dylan and her story about a creepy father who assaulted her and then proceeded to launch a smear campaign against his victim and her family.

I know which story I find more plausible.

But, these conflicting stories aside, we’re still left with some simple, disturbing facts. Even if nothing at all had happened between Dylan and Woody — even if there were no allegations — he still wound up in a romantic relationship with his girlfriend’s daughter. Woody was 56 and dating Mia Farrow when he got involved with Soon-Yi, the 19-year-old adopted sister of his children Ronan and Dylan.

That’s fucking creeptastic.

Despite the widespread reports that Woody and Soon-Yi enjoy a healthy, egalitarian marriage, Allen’s willingness to get involved with his girlfriend’s teenaged, adopted daughter speaks volumes about his character.

He’s a man who either has no sense of boundaries within a relationship, or doesn’t seriously concern himself with them. He’s a man with poor judgment and little impulse control. He’s a man who cares little for anything but his own selfish pursuit of happiness. He isn’t bothered by the disturbing, unequal power dynamic that’s present in a relationship between a 56-year-old cultural kingpin and a 19-year-old adoptee. And he doesn’t feel a mental and emotional gulf between himself and someone more than 30 years his junior — a gulf that should absolutely be present.

And he’s celebrated. Woody Allen is one of the most beloved culture creators of our generation — this man, who’s undeniably fucked up in ways that seriously harmed those closest to him. Meanwhile, Dylan — the victim here — has to live in the shadows, emotionally scarred, or risk being attacked, shamed, and smeared.

So, what does our cultural obsession with Woody Allen say about us? I’ll tell you.

It says that we don’t mind a creepy, emotionally stunted, hurtful, abusive man, so long as he’s rich and white and amusing. We’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and immortalize him with laughs and admiration.

But the people he destroys along the way? They can pretty much go fuck themselves.

I’m not a fan of that. Are you?

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [ABC Films (eBay, Lester Glassner Collection) via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woody Allen: Dating Your Girlfriend’s Daughter is Kind of a Big Deal appeared first on Law Street.

Merry Christmas Eve, folks!

Today, I’ve got ridiculousness upon ridiculousness. And it’s infuriating.

Salon reported today, via Raw Story and NBC News, on Rachel Bradshaw-Bean, a young woman from Texas who was raped in the band room at Henderson High School back in 2010, when she was just 17 years old. This is the first time Rachel has spoken out to the media about her experience – and she’s telling an awful story.

In an interview with NBC, Rachel recounted how in 2010, when she initially reported the rape, her school told her to “work it out.”

Are you kidding? Go kiss and make up with your rapist, sweetheart, no big deal.

I can’t.

News of the assault traveled to a school vice principal the following day, and Rachel was sent to a health clinic for examination. The clinic confirmed that her injuries were consistent with her report.

Despite the fact that medical professionals confirmed Rachel had experienced a rape, the Texas police informed her and her parents that no charges would be filed.

NO CHARGES WOULD BE FILED.

As in, you got raped, darling, but no one really cares. Get over it.

WTF?! This is the actual worst.

Except it’s not! Because things got worse for Rachel. Her high school opted not to carry out its own, independent investigation — which is required by law under Title IX. Instead, they decided to ship Rachel and her attacker off to a disciplinary school for 45 days with charges of “public lewdness.”

That’s right. Public fucking lewdness. How dare you get raped — how indecent of you!

So, Rachel’s mom tried to transfer her daughter to a different school. You know, where maybe she wouldn’t get treated like a criminal as punishment for being the victim of a sexual assault. And guess what? That didn’t pan out. Since Rachel was technically suspended from her original school, no other school would take her in. Ridiculous.

Seriously so bad.

So, Rachel and her family went to the ACLU, where they were told that, sadly, their situation was far from unusual. According to the ACLU, school officials often don’t understand the laws, so they don’t put much stock in following them.

The Department of Education does, though. A year after Rachel’s ordeal, it ruled that Henderson High School had violated Title IX by failing to investigate the attack, and by retaliating against the victim with her exile to a disciplinary school. As a result, the school was given a 13-point plan for Title IX compliance, mandatory staff training around rape and sexual assault, and was ordered to pay for Rachel’s counseling.

I’m glad that at least there were some consequences for this shit hole of a case.

There are so many issues here. Let’s start with the fundamental lack of empathy or concern for Rachel. WTF. This is misogyny at its finest. Misogyny, if you’re rusty on your Women’s Studies vocab, is defined as having a hatred for women. And that’s all I can really explain this as. Hatred of women. Because how else do you understand such heartless behavior? Here’s a person who was violently attacked. She’s in physical pain, she’s mentally and emotionally traumatized — this is a terrible thing that’s happened. People should respond with some empathy, am I right? There should be a collective desire to help the victim heal, and to teach the perpetrator never to cause this type of harm again.

That’s what should have happened. But it didn’t. Instead, Rachel was treated with carelessness at best and outright contempt at worst. Why would you treat a victim that way? It’s disgusting.

Seriously gross.

Moving right along, let’s tackle this issue of telling women to get over it. I’m so, so, so very sick of this sentiment. And I hear it way too often.

When someone is hurting, and they’re told to get over it, do you know what they’re hearing? They’re hearing that they don’t matter. That their feelings, and experiences, and their pain doesn’t matter. They’re being dismissed, denied, and ignored. And when that happens, a fundamental lack of trust forms in the space where healing should have started. Because, how do you feel safe in a world where you fundamentally don’t matter?

You don’t.

That’s where we’re at right now, people. And we’ve been here for a long time. Every time a woman like Rachel gets brushed aside, women everywhere are being reminded that we don’t matter. Not really. Not in this moment, not in this society.

So, for Christmas, let’s change that, shall we? Let’s use all those warm, fuzzy feelings of love and goodwill, and let’s start transferring them to all the people who need it most. Some of those people will be like Rachel. And some of them will be in totally different, but equally awful, circumstances.

Either way, let’s spread the love this year. We could all use a little extra.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [The Untrained Eye via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post All I Want For Christmas: Stop Telling Rape Victims to Get Over it appeared first on Law Street.

Lately, we’ve been hearing more and more about the mishandling of sexual assaults on college campuses. Although these allegations span years, sexual assault on college campuses is by no means a new conversation. The recent wave of outrage and advocacy began with a courageous young woman named Angie Epifano. Angie was a student at Amherst College in Massachusetts when she was raped by an acquaintance. She received little to no help from the University, and eventually published a first hand account in The Amherst Student, the student newspaper on campus. Her entire, heart-wrenching story is here (trigger warning), but the gist is that the school that she trusted institutionalized, discounted, and questioned her every move instead of providing her with appropriate and much needed resources.

The University of Connecticut, located in the sleepy northeastern countryside, has also come under fire for how they have handled sexual assault cases. Victims claim that UConn didn’t help them, and that they were discouraged from reporting the rapes to the police. One young woman, Rosemary Richie, who was raped by a football player, claims officials at UConn did not believe her.

There are stories after stories after stories on almost every single college campus in the country. Take Amanda Tripp, at the University of Indianapolis. She filed a report that she was raped on November 26, 2012. When she saw a copy almost 2 months later, the police had written, “a crime did not occur” on it. No one ever followed up with her. Or how about Landen Gambill? She reported being sexually assaulted by an ex-boyfriend. The UNC honor court subsequently found him not guilty. She was then charged herself, accused of creating an “intimidating and hostile” environment for the man who had assaulted her by charging him with such assault. Regardless of whether or not he was actually guilty, a young woman should never be scared that she might get in trouble with the school if she reports a crime.

The numbers speak for themselves: at least 1 in 4 women in college will be the victim of a sexual assault during their time in school. Colleges need to be able to provide resources for that 25% of their female population that is attacked. But as we’ve seen time after time after time, this often is not the case.

Now, these women are fighting back. The Title IX Network —an informal network of activists–has helped women at multiple schools file federal claims against the universities. The Title IX Network bills itself as “working to support all survivors, to change how colleges and universities handle sexual assault, and to change a culture where violence is normalized.” Most recently these include Amherst, UConn, and Vanderbilt University; earlier this year claims were filed against UNC, Occidental, Swarthmore, UC Boulder, Dartmouth, USC, Berkeley, and Emerson.

The complaints have been filed under both Title IX and Clery Act provisions. Title IX states that universities have a responsibility to take immediate and effective steps when allegations of sexual violence are brought forth. Under Title IX, the Department of Education can impose fines or block access to federal funds. The Clery Act requires schools to accurately disclose crimes that occur on campus. By not handling and reporting these allegations of sexual assault properly, the universities against whom complaints have been levied may be in violation.

Something has to change. Twenty-five percent of young women, twenty-five percent of my peers, should not be assaulted in the environments in which they are supposed to learn and grow. If these charges lead to any sort of change in the abhorrent way universities have been handling this issue, I say more power to the Title IX network.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Wolfram Burner via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Title IX Complaints Against Universities Grow appeared first on Law Street.