I can see how some people might be moving toward silencing women in this case - in the wake of the Duke incident.

It pisses me off, though, because the perps are the ones giving the benefit of the doubt - and never the women.

It's as if, to say, rape is such a serious crime that they've got to side with the accused rather than the victims.

You know what's even sadder? That we even need this in the first place - that it's a program women gravitate toward, and has some meaning to them. It only means that the rape crisis is still on-going on our campuses, and that the public sphere is still a dangerous place for half of the student body.

On another note, kind of related, I believe "Take Back the Night" ought to just be called, "Take the Night ..." as we know the night never fully belonged to women. To "take" rather than "take back" is a powerful representation in terms of language.

Ooops, GIVEN the benefit of the doubt, and not GIVING. Sorry. Those two words can have different meanings in the context of what I said.

We had the same project at my university in Ohio and it got shut down too, because the state took away the funding for it.

The university is making the right call here. The problem is that this is a university sponsored event. As such they are responsible for the contents of it. It will be the university that will be left defending the defamation suit. Its not clear that whether the t-shirts are anonymous, but imagine the nightmare of trying to defend the making of an anyonymous allegation of sexual assault against a defamation suit.

This article
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/bal-md.clothesline04oct04,0,1802008.story

quotes an administration official who I think is correct:

"Linda Clement, UM's vice president of student affairs, emphasized that the campus would not seek to curtail individual student speech on campus, even potentially slanderous speech. But she said that as a formal sponsor of the event, the college had to consider its potential liability to people who might claim they were falsely accused.

"It would be different if an individual were going to write something on a shirt and put something up individually," Clement said. "Then it would be free speech. But if it is an office sponsoring an event, I think we have to adhere to the law."

Read between the lines and she is virtually telling them do their own independent event. Thats really the solution here.

So, we're worried about law suits instead of doing what's right? Conciousness raising and naming the perps are the backseat because of potential lawsuits? Hmmm, because every woman goes around accusing others of rape and imagine stories of being raped, right?

Sometimes, we society, we've got to stand up and have the courage to speak for something. UM's officials just aren't doing that ...and to think, UM has one of the best WMST programs out there.

I was just gonna say, why not throw your own event.. yeah.

Anyway, it really sucks! If this were any other crime besides rape, would they be asking to abstain from naming?

Anyway, it really sucks! If this were any other crime besides rape, would they be asking to abstain from naming?

Yes

As a lawyer, I can't disagree with the university lawyers' recommendation. Unless you want the university-sponsored event canceled altogether.

I think that the legal issue is bullshit, but I do understand it. The problem here is that the university should not sponsor an event that they are not willing to back up and hold properly. If their lawyers tell them that in order to hold the event, they need to silence rape victims, they should choose not sponsor the event themselves and help the organizers find their another funding stream. I'm sure that they could also anonymously fund it, but of course what's the point of giving money if you don't get the publicity. That would make them the "bigger person" in this situation, and as it stands they (rightfully) look like rape-apologetic assholes. They may have gotten good legal advice, but it sure sounds to me like they need a better PR team.

We held the same event for Take Back the Night at UC Davis earlier this year. I was actually in charge of the clothesline project. We were explicitly told that we could write FIRST names regardless of whether or not they were convicted. The only way we could write last names was if they were convicted. The thought process was the odds of doing any "damage" to someone's "reputation" based on first name alone was not possible. But, if we included first and last name, they could sue for damages unless we could prove it's true. Hence the only using last names if convicted bit.

I'm hoping this is what happened at U of Maryland and that it is simply getting misrepresented. If not... that's just ridiculous. There is no reason a survivor shouldn't be able to write the first name of their attacker.

okay legal people... question: it's not illegal to use a criminals name publicly in newspapers and media. So whats the issue in this case?

Were the perps convicted or not? Is that the case here? That there is question of their guilt?

ProFeministMale - Students are free to say what they want at their own risk, but the university must protect itself when it sponsors an event like this.

Here is one point you might be missing. If the University sponsors the event, you could potentially end up with guilty rapists suing the university (for example if charges were never pressed against them or were dropped). Would you like to give them a golden opportunity to profit from their crimes?

"Hmmm, because every woman goes around accusing others of rape and imagine stories of being raped, right?"

Either that or because they're afraid a few people (whether women or men or both) would explot the event to wreck the reps of whomever they're bullying...

Liz:

From the article I linked above:

"Affixed to a painter's easel was a note reading: "For legal reasons, the University Health Center has decided that no shirt will be hung if it contains both first and last names of perpetrators and/or specifically identifying information."

So basically it looks like the same rule you followed.

To Frog Queen:

It would be okay to list people who were convicted, but almost certainly the issue is the people who want to name those who have been not convicted.

You will notice that when the media is reporting about people who have been accused or arrested or being tried the term "alleged" is used. Also there is generally a limited privilege to that prevents liability for defamation to report the ongoings of legal proceedings.

"There's power in naming"

Damn straight there is. Ask the Duke guys how their job searches are going these days. You better believe the power of naming affected them. Unfortunately they didn't rape anyone. For the very same reason you presume innocence in all crimes until guilt is PROVEN so you don't send innocent people to jail, you can't allow unproven naming of people as rapists. To avoid the jailing of 1 innocent person it is better that 10 guilty go free. Same deal.

Frogqueen, for liability reasons the media would almost never use a suspect's name unless he had been named by the police or in a judicial proceeding. Lookit what happened in the Richard Jewell case.

It seems like the organizers of this thing would be better served making sure that victims have a fair-but-tough campus procedure for reporting crimes.

NoName, what's more important, a potential lawsuit or bringing closure and possibly justice to rape victims? I'd pick the latter.

The point is, when it comes to social justice, we can't take a step to try to protect ourselves from liability.

I am not one to wear my heart on my sleeve, but certain issues need to be fought with vigor and determination, rather than legal calculations. Rape is one of those things.

"To avoid the jailing of 1 innocent person it is better that 10 guilty go free."

Wait, what? Isn't it better that no innocent people are jailed and no guilty people go free?

i'm not going to say it doesn't trouble me at all, but the university is acting on sound legal advice and making a rational decision here.

“For the very same reason you presume innocence in all crimes until guilt is PROVEN so you don't send innocent people to jail, you can't allow unproven naming of people as rapists.�
Presumption of innocence is only in a court of law. It doesn’t by any means imply that people cannot even mention their assailants until they can prove their case in court. On the other hand I am really wondering how you know about the poor little Duke guys’ job searches. Are you just assuming? Also, charges were dropped ~= they didn’t rape anyone. It just means there wasn’t enough consistent evidence.

First thing: before you apply for financial aid, sign up for classes, attend orientation, buy your books, and so forth...GET MARTIAL ARTS TRAINING. I'd had some judo, wrestling and growing up with three brothers for training. I would recommend model mugging.

If you are attacked, beat the living crap out of the guy (or at least get physically well away from him -- or THEM), and then CALL THE CITY POLICE *NOT* CAMPUS SECURITY. Campus security is there to protect the perps and the reputation of the university, NOT YOU.

I did this.

OK I didn't break any of his bones, but I did get him off me long enough to run away and lock myself into a nearby lab with a phone. My reason for calling the city cops was that 911 came instantly to mind, whereas I had no idea what the number was for campus security.

It turned out to be the right thing to do, however. The cops came while the guy was banging on the lab door trying to get at me still.

The next day, the Dean of the DIVISION called ME in, and threatened to expell me for "embarrassing the university" by calling the city cops.

I told him that if he did, I would follow through with filing charges, and that I would name HIM as an accessory.

This is how I got to stay in school, y'all. If I hadn't had martial arts training, I'd be a rape victim to this day, and if I'd called campus security instead of The Law, I'd have been thrown out of school.

That being said, I don't know what would happen today -- they'd probably TASER us both and give us one-way tickets to Oblivion on Extraordinary Rendition Airlines.

It seems like the organizers of this thing would be better served making sure that victims have a fair-but-tough campus procedure for reporting crimes.

First, the "campus procedure" for reporting a crime shouldn't be any different than reporting a crime off-campus. Second, and most important, it should never be "tough" for a victim (or anyone else) to report a crime, ever.

P.F.M.: From the university's perspective, a potential lawsuit. Women are free to organize on their own to achieve closure, and I'm sure they don't need to do so on the school's timetable.

sojourner, don't be opening up that Duke case or else they're going to come out of the woodwork and this will turn into a Duke thread here. That case was a rare instance where men were charged with a crime for which the D.A. subsequently admitted there was no credible evidence; he was disbarred; and the attorney general who took over the case said the guys were "innocent." For every Duke there are hundreds where they got the guy dead to rights. And note the system failed in the Duke case because of an unscrupulous D.A. (a male). The accuser apparently was unbalanced but the D.A. never should have pursued it.

well I guess its obvious that the university should just bow out all together since they're dictating what rape victims can and can't do to express their feeling about the crimes committed against them.

"I am not one to wear my heart on my sleeve, but certain issues need to be fought with vigor and determination, rather than legal calculations. Rape is one of those things."

First off, "legal calculations" is a very bland and intentionally oblique way of describing what could happen to a falsely accused person (or a person who even just shares a similar uncommon name, leading others to think "it must be him!"). I usually hate when people go on and on about "false accusations" because it smacks of undermining the victim and undermining women's ability to be taken seriously, but it certainly happens. An innocent person deserves just as much consideration as a victim. That's how our system is built.

Secondly, is anonymously accusing people a priori, no trial, no nothing, really a valid way to fight with vigor and determination?

And if the university did allow full-name postings, might that not totally undermine the purpose of this demonstration, turning it into a rubbernecking event rather than a consciousness-raising demonstration demanding that we think critically about sexual violence? I could see students dropping by solely to see whose names were up there, but missing the larger point entirely.

Oh give me a break. This is just another institution trying to protect their own asses, at the expense of women.

You really think that a bunch of rapists and molesters are going to turn up at this thing, find their names written, and then sue? How likely is that?

This is pathetic. You can't write a full name on a shirt? I mean, that completely takes away from the greatness of this event. It's all about saving these poor men/rapists from having their reputations smeared. And we all know that a man's reputation is WAY more important than a woman's bodily integrity, right to safety, and right to fucking talk about WHO raped her!

GRRRRR. If I went there, I'd put my grandfather's full name out there. I mean, they really think he's going to be there? And what rapist is going to sue anyways? Only a stupid one.

Secondly, is anonymously accusing people a priori, no trial, no nothing, really a valid way to fight with vigor and determination?

Yes. Because you mistake the purpose of the naming--it's not about "accusing" the poor rapists. It's about the women raped by men having a forum in which they can find their voices and be supported. Openly talking about what men have done to women personally and individually is a vital part of Take Back the Night. What about the speak-outs? Are women telling their stories supposed to censor the names of the men who raped him during the speak-outs as well?

Agreed, Shelby. When you've been attacked, "tough" is anything but "fair." And it's already pretty fucking tough. Police fail to file reports and harass victims all of the time. It's a shame both for those victims and for any future victims of attack who may hear about these circumstances and choose to not report as a result. It's also horrific for trust in the police. Though they don't get as much publicity, there are good cops out there, but right now there are enough bad ones that people can't tell the difference and simply fear and resent them all. I don't know how anyone could argue that that's the way to go.

"Yes. Because you mistake the purpose of the naming--it's not about "accusing" the poor rapists. It's about the women raped by men having a forum in which they can find their voices and be supported."

First of all, how is naming someone as your rapist in a public forum not accusing them?

Second, I feel women can find their voices and be supported without using full names. If they want to, of course that's their choice, but I don't see why the university would have to support that. In other forums such as AA, when someone speaks about their experiences (and that's an intentionally anonymous forum, where participants agree to "keep it in the room"), they often intentionally omit personal details. I think it is very possible to support women but ask them not to use the full names of their attacker unless convicted (as pointed out by someone above). It just seems like the responsible thing to do.

Edit, by "personal details" above I meant "identifying details about others not in the room." Apologies for a lack of clarity ...

I think it is very possible to support women but ask them not to use the full names of their attacker unless convicted (as pointed out by someone above). It just seems like the responsible thing to do.

No it seems like the highly-insensitive thing to do, and yet another way to tell victims that the men who raped them have more rights than they do. As if they really need a reminder most of the time.

Why is it that seemingly educated, bright folks are unable to distinguish between a court of law and everything else.

People are "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law. Not in my kitchen, where I might be telling a story to a friend. Not on my blog, where I might be writing an article for anyone out there to read or discussing an incident with a large number of people.
People are presumed "innocent" by the court system; that's it. The rest of us are not required to presume John Doe's innocence.

The University would fear potential liability if it sanctioned allowing women to publicly accuse men of rape without due process (like the men used to accuse women of witchcraft). A certain southern school recently paid an apparently enormous settlement because the University gave quasi-sanction to professors who suggested in writing that certain lacrosse players were guilty without an adjudication of guilt. The women can wear a shirt themselves and while they would run the risk of potential liability for libel if the allegation were untrue, no responsible University would have any part of that.

First of all, how is naming someone as your rapist in a public forum not accusing them?

Because the world and this even does not revolve around what this speech-act means to the rapist; it revolves around what it means to the woman. Naming the rapist is part of the woman's telling her story, which is the point.

I feel women can find their voices and be supported without using full names. If they want to, of course that's their choice, but I don't see why the university would have to support that. In other forums such as AA, when someone speaks about their experiences (and that's an intentionally anonymous forum, where participants agree to "keep it in the room"), they often intentionally omit personal details.

Well, you hit the nail on the head: those are AA's own rules. AA and its members have decided that that's how they want to run things. One might also add that one of the reasons for this is that AA members may well be talking about people they have hurt, intentionally or not, through their alcoholism, and maintaining those people's anonymity is a way of protecting them. Here we are talking specifically about women who have been hurt.

Finally, no-one is arguing that the university must do anything. We are talking about what the university should do. It's amazing how many people confuse morality with legal obligation.

"I think it is very possible to support women but ask them not to use the full names of their attacker unless convicted (as pointed out by someone above). It just seems like the responsible thing to do.

"No it seems like the highly-insensitive thing to do, and yet another way to tell victims that the men who raped them have more rights than they do. As if they really need a reminder most of the time."

While this could stop A from using the event to announce "B raped me" after B did rape her or him...

...couldn't it also stop C from using the event to announce "A raped me" after A didn't rape her or him and C just decided to bully A?

SarahMC, the University justifiably would fear potential civil suits for defamation by sanctioning public naming. You, personally, are free to accuse someone, but that wouldn't subject the University to a claim of defamation, only you if it turned out you lied. The University's Board of Regents and its insurer would not allow the University to sanction individuals to accuse others of any crime -- rape, or theft, or murder.

First of all, how is naming someone as your rapist in a public forum not accusing them?

Because the world and this even does not revolve around what this speech-act means to the rapist; it revolves around what it means to the woman. Naming the rapist is part of the woman's telling her story, which is the point.

Exactly: it serves as both. Just because I am bringing up the question of possible consequences of this naming doesn't mean I don't understand that this is a question about the woman's experience. I think you're confusing my question with a lack of support for victims. We disagree on this point, but I certainly support the victim's need to tell her story.

Finally, no-one is arguing that the university must do anything. We are talking about what the university should do. It's amazing how many people confuse morality with legal obligation.

You are right about the AA thing ... good point. However, I am not confusing morality and legal obligation. I am pointing out that our legal system set an "innocent until proven guilty" standard for a reason, and I think in part it is a moral stance, and one that should be considered in relationship to this question.

I think it's a good idea to advise the women not to write the full names of the rapists on the shirts, or at least advise them that if they do, their rapists could potentially bring a lawsuit against them.

I'm just so f'ing sick of all this bs that rape victims have to go through. It is SO hard to get a conviction- even if you DO press charges, doesn't mean the DA will take the case. Doesn't mean you'll win, in fact, most likely you will lose. You will be dragged through the mud and he will end up being acquitted, and will be able to spend the rest of his life knowing that he got away with rape.

So, requiring a conviction before we can name our rapists, means, that we can not ever name our rapists. Essentially, that's what it means. That means only the teensy teensy tiny percentage of raped women actually get to name their rapist. Cause ya know, that's fair!

Comparing AA to women trying to speak out about a man raping them is not a great comparison. The purpose of AA is so that people can get support without having their issues aired in public. This is like, the exact opposite of what a speak out or take back the night or clothesline project is all about.

I understand what people are saying about the University's role in this-and I will restate: They are protecting their own asses at the expense of rape victims. If they think that is "moral" than whatever. I think it is awful.

Maybe I've got my head in the clouds again, as my professor would often say, but what about this idea? A shirt with the names of convicted rapists in the back, and something like, "Speak Out - Add a Name."

I think conciousness raising, while in a sense of politics, is ineffective, it certain does help with letting people know they are not alone and to bring to light an epidemic as well.

While this could stop A from using the event to announce "B raped me" after B did rape her or him...

...couldn't it also stop C from using the event to announce "A raped me" after A didn't rape her or him and C just decided to bully A?

I suppose. But I imagine that most women who have reason to fear retaliation from their rapists probably would not put a full name on their shirt. I imagine that most women who do are not subjected to interacting with their rapists or around people who might know their rapist. Of course, some women might name men who are currently on the same campus, and I think that its their right to do so. But the more common scenario probably includes a woman who was raped in her hometown, or raped by a man from a different school, etc.

I agree with Jenny that a gentle advisory may be in order to protect these women. But I do think that most women are smart enough to not go around antagonizing a rapist that they might run into in the near future.

Working/Going to School/Running the newspaper at a university has given me an interesting perspective on this... specifically what is and isn't university sponsored events.

ANYTHING that students organize that takes place on campus, even if they are not part of a registered group on campus or even if they don't have technical permission, is considered a university sponsored event. If an outside group comes in with permission, it is a University sponsored event. This does NOT mean that it is a university SUPPORTED event.

If it is supported by student fees, administration has NO say over how those fees are spent, the students/student government does. The students vote to charge themselves the fee and the administration cannot mandate those funds. As much as administration would like people to believe that they have the final say, at a public university if it is not directly class or tuition related, they don't.

At the College Media Advisors conference back in March, I swear every other forum I went to something came up about university administration trying to butt in on things they had no right to.

From the little bit I have found/read about this situation, the students can do whatever they want provided it still falls under protected speech (ie, doesnt try to incite violence, which being a event against violence, i doubt). While students rights have been under attack for a while, there is still such a thing as academic freedom (at public universities) and honestly, it is the most freedom anyone (who knows how to defend it) will ever have in this world.

"'While this could stop A from using the event to announce 'B raped me' after B did rape her or him...

"'...couldn't it also stop C from using the event to announce 'A raped me' after A didn't rape her or him and C just decided to bully A?'

"I suppose. But I imagine that most women who have reason to fear retaliation from their rapists probably would not put a full name on their shirt."

That's my guess too.

In the above hypothetical, I was wondering if any admins were afraid bullies could hijack the event by throwing the full names of non-rapists (possibly including rape survivors) into the mix in order to bully those non-rapists...

There are at least separate issues here that keep getting smashed together, this is a problem as the responses are somewhat contradictory.

1) Should the school sponsor this event and allow women to name full names regardless of conviction?

2) Should the women be naming full names as part of this event?

For 1) ,no, I don't think so. The school should not endorse public accusations, likely of one student against another, without any sort of proof. In that case, it is equally obligated to protect the accuser and the accused as students. The school should certainly provide more rape prevention and support, that can be said of most schools, but supporting a public accusation is a separate issue. Legal obligations are certainly a consideration, but the school also has a moral obligation not to take sides against a potential innocent. As an awareness raising event, the theoretical purpose, the same effect can be achieved with out full names. If it's actually about personal feelings, closure, and being publicly heard, and that naming full names is integral to the event, student can still hold an event without the school's sponsorship.

2) As for the women doing it on their own, go for it. Hopefully there are some safeguards in place, like it being limited to serious group contributors, i.e. not someone showing up and writing "Mickey Mouse" to make a mockery of the event. Sure there's the same potential of abuse, but that's something the group, or the individuals should be responsible for, not the school.

The crux of the problem is the purpose of the event? Is it about catharsis and public shaming, or is it about raising awareness? Both have their place, but need to handled differently.

These arguments all just sound so victim-blaming to me. THese women are the ones who have had their lives turned upside down, but people seem WAY more worried about the rapists. Or, about some woman possibly writing down the name of a non-rapist in order to hurt him. Isn't this just the same as saying women make up false rape allegations? It's the same crap- "women can't be trusted, they make stuff up, they lie about what men do."

Roni-I would imagine the purpose of the event is different for each survivor-some want to raise awareness, some want to just speak out for the first time ever. And I have no problem with publicly shaming rapists.

There is FAR too much concern with the rights of rapists, and far too little concern with the fact that women are being beaten, raped and abused every single day. But let's ignore that, and just talk about these poor men that might get hurt!

I'm just really sick of being told what I can and can't do when it comes to my abuser. Ya know what? He did whatever the fuck he wanted to me, but now he has rights? More rights than me? Fuck that. I'm so sick of rape apologists, and people who are so concerned with protecting possibly innocent men.

"Or, about some woman possibly writing down the name of a non-rapist in order to hurt him. Isn't this just the same as saying women make up false rape allegations?"

Not only women.

When I was in middle school, some of the bullies there said I did a whole bunch of things I didn't do. It's entirely possible that preteens aren't the only jerks who act like that, girls aren't the only targets of action like that, and "she gave the retarded kid blowjobs!!!" isn't the only accusation one can make while doing that...

I am co-chair of my university's Clothesline Project and we have the same guidelines of first names and initials only. We let the women know that before making their shirts and if they feel that writing the full name of their attacker is necessary then that is fine, I'm not going to dictate what they write. However, although we are not responsible for what they write, we are responsible for what we display and we give them notice that full names will not be hung up. Similarly, there was a shirt made that had the word "faggot" on it and although that may have been a part of that person's healing process, we made the decision not to promote one form of oppression while confronting another. Just my experience.

The obvious solution is for the University to require that only the names of persons CONVICTED of rape be posted. That way, there would be no possibility of somebody taking this opportunity to make a false and spurious allegation against an innocent person.

I feel conflicted on this. An earlier posting quoted the administration's statement on it, which did sound like, if you read between the lines, that they did support the idea but wanted to cover themselves legally.

However I agree MORE with the earlier commenter who said "yet another way to tell victims that the men who raped them have more rights than they do. As if they really need a reminder most of the time."

I REALLY like the idea of actually publicly naming rapists. A public forum BECAUSE the court systems, police, and numerous others along the way have failed rape survivors in huge, appauling, institutionalized ways.

I am not so tech/internet savy, but is it possible to create an annonymous website that acts as a forum for rape survivors to name their rapists in full? With possibly a way to search names? Would the creators of such a site be held to similar legal recourses?

There is FAR too much concern with the rights of rapists, and far too little concern with the fact that women are being beaten, raped and abused every single day. But let's ignore that, and just talk about these poor men that might get hurt!

I'm just really sick of being told what I can and can't do when it comes to my abuser. Ya know what? He did whatever the fuck he wanted to me, but now he has rights? More rights than me? Fuck that. I'm so sick of rape apologists, and people who are so concerned with protecting possibly innocent men.

I'm very sorry that it seems like people who support the university's decision - or at least understand it - are rape apologists, and I understand why you'd feel that way. But this isn't a matter of protecting rapists to me.

It IS a matter of morality to uphold a system of justice regardless of how horrible the crime is. As a matter of principal, I believe that people should be free to practice free speech AND be legally protected from harmful speech. Legally this is also the case. It is not cowardly to uphold the law, especially a good one.

However, I would have no problem having an "alleged" rapist's name put up, in full, with an indicator that it is an accusation, not a statement of what the law recognizes to be true.

Jessi- that's an interesting way to think about it- what you said in the last paragraph. Is there a way that women can name their rapist/abuser while being clear that there is no legal stuff going on?

It just feels like when we talk about protecting people's rights and reputations, it's always about protecting the men, never about the women.

Marissa,
I agree with public shaming of rapists. And you are so right-it's important to have a public forum, because of how the "justice" system fails women constantly. We are just supposed to go on and uphold the system, even when it disregards us at every turn? I don't think so.

I know that there have been different websites set up for victims/survivors, to name their abuser, but I think they end up getting taken down, for the same reasons. I always wished that there was a big online database where we could post names and experiences. I would love to connect with other people abused by my grandfather, or raped by the same assholes in college that I was. I think this would be an amazing thing for women-which is why you won't really see it online. Way too much power! And ya know, we women just LOVE to falsely accuse and mess people's lives up.

Can ya tell I'm pissed off today?

As an active feminist on a college campus, I have witness how reporting rape to the campus authorities generally transpires. A girl is sexually assaulted, generally under the influence of alcohol, presses charges which are dismissed (in my two years 100% of the cases have been dropped). Once the perpetrator is supposedly proven "innocent", the girl is ALWAYS labeled as a lying slut who is trying to blame men for her own problems. So ultimately, at Rice, it is psychologically SAFER to not come forward legally as a victim of rape - because ultimately your protest will ONLY serve to make things worst when your charges are dropped. In my experience, the subversive act of coming forward without attempting to navigate our failed legal system is ultimately a more successful way to change people's minds. I was having a conversation with my boyfriend the other day and he said "They really need to work harder to convict men of rape - white men have absolutely nothing to fear so long as they don't violently rape anyone, they KNOW there will be no serious legal consequences for their actions". This is the sad and unfortunate truth on college campuses across the United States. Buying into a legal system that is failing women at ever increasing rates (I think its disgusting that a judge can ban the use of the word rape WITHOUT informing the jury of this decision; I think its even more disgusting that this woman's appeal to a higher court was denied because she "failed to prove that he should intervene"). We aren't going to change this dysfunctional justice system as victims of its dysfunction. Women need to take the power that the justice system have robbed them of and take it into their own hands - by letting men know that there WILL be consequences for their actions.

Student Athletes who gang raped a girl unfairly judged
Men Victims of False Accusations at Rice

Yay bubblex! Exactly!

I understand the explosive nature of this particular topic, but some of the comments here seem to really miss the point that this is an issue about potential liability for libel/defamation, NOT rape.

I don't for one second believe an event like this would draw a bunch of women writing the names of men who DIDN'T rape them just for kicks, or to smear a jerk, or whatever. I believe most young women understand the seriousness of the topic enough to respond seriously, and that if your name ends up on one of those T-shirts, you probably ARE a rapist. But:

If the university sponsors a forum where students are libeling others, the university becomes liable. Saying someone committed a crime, whether it's murder, rape or robbery, can be proven as defamatory or libelous very easily in the absence of a criminal conviction. In a case like that, the person who made the statement is under the burden of proving that the statement they made is true, and even then, truth is not necessarily a complete defense. This is not a value judgment, and it is CERTAINLY not a statement on the veracity of rape accusers; it is simply how our legal system works.

As one commenter already noted, this is *precisely* why you will NEVER see the phrase "John Smith killed/raped/attacked Jane Smith" in the newspaper without some version of "allegedly" or "police said" attached to it. We spend a lot of time at my job making sure that reports on crime follow a very specific set of rules, because a failure to follow those rules opens up the company to a potential million-dollar verdict.

Buggle--

I won't for one minute attempt to downplay the terrible abuse you were subjected to. And I can't speak to the therapeutic value of events like this for those who have been abused.

But I don't think the university recognizing an obvious and potentially massive liability amounts to being "rape apologists."

I don't think the others on this board who recognize that legal reality, without offering judgment on its validity, are rape apologists either. I know I'm not.

The fact is, if Student A puts up a sign saying that Student B raped her, and Student B was not convicted of that rape and decides to sue, it's a fairly open-and-shut case that Student B would likely win. The potential liability to the university would be in the millions of dollars. Now multiply that by however many students are named on those T-shirts/signs.

Should universities be doing a whole lot more to prevent rape and support rape victims? Hell yes. Should they sponsor an event that could drain their coffers of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in order to do that? Probably not.

"I know that there have been different websites set up for victims/survivors, to name their abuser, but I think they end up getting taken down, for the same reasons."

Buggle,
That is some MESSED UP SHIT! Alternative means for survivors to have SOME recourse and even those are continuously silenced. I still think setting up an online database where survivors can name their rapists is a good idea. Just as often as they are shut down, we should be putting them right back up. I really wish I knew how to put together such a thing, because I'd be on that like NOW.

I am seriously so pissed off about how this new angle of seeking empowerment is being actively shut down, much like the vast majority of those rape cases that are reported are shut down from even going to trial... Blech..

sncreducer, I understand everything that you're saying here. I really do. And I also agree with a fair amount of what you say. Where we differ is here:

In a case like that, the person who made the statement is under the burden of proving that the statement they made is true, and even then, truth is not necessarily a complete defense. This is not a value judgment, and it is CERTAINLY not a statement on the veracity of rape accusers; it is simply how our legal system works.

Firstly, people accuse others of committing crimes all the time without facing a libel suit. You can see it any day of the week just by flipping on the news or reading an article. How is a family member of a murder victim saying "I know that X killed my daughter" outside of court any different from a woman saying "X raped me?"

And secondly, the idea that rape victims lose these cases is a value judgment. If it's "just how our legal system works," then the legal system has been established on this judgment. But it's still a judgment, and it's still calling victims liars, and it's still ludicrous that such an accusation can can result in lawsuits and that those lawsuits are regularly won.

Hmm, Marissa-maybe you will inspire me to set one up. I just don't know how to do websites and stuff, and I'll probably get sued. Hah. Maybe I can do one on Livejournal. It really pisses me off that victims are silenced at every turn!

Sncreducer-the point is-this IS about rape. It's supposed to be about women healing from rape. But of course, the attention has to be taken off of that and put on the "real victims"- the non-rapists that could be named! Or worse, the University!

Considering that many of these women were probably raped by another student at that university, I say the uni has a real responsibility to do something here, and not just cover their own asses.

I mean-couldnt' there be a compromise? Like, if you don't put the full names on the t-shirts, you can give us the full names and we will conduct a serious investigation into the "alleged" rape, and involve the police. If the woman wants it. But no-there are no offers of help from the University. Just a lot of ass-covering-for what really just comes down to money.

So, once again, money is more important than women's lives. Sigh.

And yes, I believe that all universities SHOULD spend millions of dollars making sure that 1/2 of their student population is not getting raped and abused. But they don't care.

I organized The Clothesline Project at my school, and in fact made a shirt for myself. So I have some perspective as to what this event is like for a campus and for survivors, especially at a small school like mine.

First of all, I think people upthread who are saying "OMG if you can't put anyone's name then the entire point is defeated!" are being ridiculous. Making a t-shirt, just the act of making it, regardless of what you say on it is an incredibly empowering act.

For us, we requested that no names be included on the shirt. Of the 100 shirts we got in total, both this year and last, we've only had two shirts that called anyone out. One named a specific frat where the survivor was raped, and the other said Fuck You to a faculty member who seemed to indicate that a scantily-dressed student who was studying abroad could have 'prevented' her rape. None put the full name of their rapist. I don't know what we would have done if someone HAD put the full name of their rapist on the shirt. It would've been a really difficult decision whether or not to hang it.

"I mean-couldnt' there be a compromise? Like, if you don't put the full names on the t-shirts, you can give us the full names and we will conduct a serious investigation into the 'alleged' rape, and involve the police. If the woman wants it. But no-there are no offers of help from the University. Just a lot of ass-covering-for what really just comes down to money."

Exactly. Another compromise could be "you run the event without our logo, and say whatever you want in it."

"That is some MESSED UP SHIT! Alternative means for survivors to have SOME recourse and even those are continuously silenced. I still think setting up an online database where survivors can name their rapists is a good idea. Just as often as they are shut down, we should be putting them right back up. I really wish I knew how to put together such a thing, because I'd be on that like NOW."

For what it's worth, TheGORB is still up:

http://www.thegorb.com/

You can only rate someone and add comments about him or her if you have that person's email address, though.

"Sncreducer-the point is-this IS about rape. It's supposed to be about women healing from rape. But of course, the attention has to be taken off of that and put on the 'real victims'- the non-rapists that could be named!"

Now I'm wondering if anyone's been both. For example, if woman or girl A was raped by relative B and then years later informally accused of rape by her ex-boyfriend C who thinks "she's making me pay child support for our baby, that's raping me in the wallet!!!"...

"And yes, I believe that all universities SHOULD spend millions of dollars making sure that 1/2 of their student population is not getting raped and abused."

Right on. Campus police should not be a get-out-of-jail-free card!

I just wanted to comment on the whole libeling people thing. I'm not a lawyer but I'm fairly certain that a woman can come out & say "Joe Blow" raped me & not be liable for libel just because she can't prove it. That's basically the scenario in all of these thousands of criminal cases that are dismissed right?

I think the school's liability is different. So they hang these shirts up, which are anonymous and then there's an allegation against John Smith with no identified accuser except the school. Then his defamation case against the school is a different scenario entirely.

Anyway, at my corporation of 30,000 people there are 3 people with my name.

Oh yeah & does anyone else see the ad for womansavers.com?

First of all, I think people upthread who are saying "OMG if you can't put anyone's name then the entire point is defeated!" are being ridiculous. Making a t-shirt, just the act of making it, regardless of what you say on it is an incredibly empowering act.

I agree that not all women would want to put a name on their shirts, and that making the shirt without a name can still be an empowering experience.

Let me try again to explain what is pissing me off: In our society, women are raped. It's always "she was raped" and "I was raped." It's never HE RAPED HER. And the latter is what actually happens. Women don't "get" raped all on their own. It is done to them. The language of "she was raped" is harmful because she is the only subject in that sentence. There's no one else in that sentence to blame. And there should be, because there always is someone to blame for a rape: the rapist.

This is one of the reasons why I feel that naming is very powerful. So many women are made to feel like they are somehow responsible for their rape. Naming allows her to put the blame where it actually belongs, it allows the burden of blame that she has been placing on herself to be lifted.

This is a problem, I think, with The Clothesline Project, though I otherwise think that it is a great and worth idea. What you see are a bunch of women who have been victimized, being brave enough to stand up and admit that they have been raped. And that's great. But yet again, we are only seeing the victims. These aren't a bunch of women who have been raped; men have raped these women. And I think that The Clothesline Project should reflect that as best it can by not being afraid to talk about the actual rapists.

And I truly do believe that what all of this libel crap is about-- and this includes the actual laws, not only those supporting them-- it's yet another way to silence women and tell them that it's okay to be a victim, as long as you still accept part of the blame. Society does not like to hear that "men rape women." Some don't like it because they fail to grasp that this truthful statement in no way says that all men rape women. And others don't like it because the moment we recognize who is to blame for the problem, we're going to be expected to get up off our asses and actually do something.

Cara--

I should clarify: I meant that me stating how the system works is not a value judgment. The actual machinations of the system, of course, work entirely on value judgments. But I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a libel system that says a person can't say "Person X killed my mother" or "Person X raped me" without being able to prove it. (This excepts, of course, such statements made in the course of a criminal investigation, which are and should remain exempt from libel/slander.)

Yes, people say "Person X killed my mother" in front of the courthouse all the time without facing legal consequences. But the fact remains that if Person X was not convicted, and chose to pursue a legal claim, the legal burden would be on the accuser to prove that what they said is true. And very few people have the monetary means to mount a successful libel defense.

The real problem, which I think we can agree on, is that the system is weighted against rape victims in the realm of prosecuting rapists. If the system did a better job of investigating rapes and convicting rapists, the issue of libel would be largely insignificant.

I'm sorry, but naming someone anonymously doesn't strike me as "powerful." It strikes me as cowardly. Even if the shirt was displayed, is that really going to deter a rapist? Powerful is going through with the legal proceedings and pressing charges.

I'm sorry, but naming someone anonymously doesn't strike me as "powerful." It strikes me as cowardly.

Fuck. You.

Standing up in court, and saying, "he's the one. He did it." That is an act of power.

"'I'm sorry, but naming someone anonymously doesn't strike me as 'powerful.' It strikes me as cowardly. '

"Fuck. You."

Indeed.

Ever noticed how some people see no middle ground between staying totally silent and telling everything to everyone? Likewise the double standard, in which concealing yourself is cowardly and exposing yourself is "asking for it," sucks too.

Standing up in court, and saying, "he's the one. He did it." That is an act of power.

Is that exactly what you did when you were raped? No? Then shut the fuck up, you insensitive bastard.

Alaric, you're an idiot. A man rapes a woman, and due to the incredibly misogynist culture in which she finds herself, she doesn't tell anybody. She blames herself to a greater and lesser degree. Perhaps it's somebody she knows, and she sees that over the years, nothing bad happens to him. Meanwhile, she bottles up and turns inward her feelings of anger, experiences herself as being worthless, fears that if she tells anybody what has happened to her they'll think less of her. Through support and therapy and inner strength, she finds it in herself to stand up at a speak-out or to create a document finally telling what this man did to her and speaking his name, and you call that cowardly?

Yes. Fuck you.

I live in Maryland and Maryland taxpayers pay for this university. Do I want the University to lose its insurance coverage or to have to go to the General Assembly for a supplemental budget item in tight times because it made itself a joint tortfeasor when some Duke-lacrosse-player-sympathizer sues in Prince George's County? Not particularly.

While I would expect a substantial amount of civil disobedience on this (e.g. people spelling names one letter off, giving websites where the names can be found, a off-site place for the names, xerox phantoms, etc.), I am glad that College Park won't be made into a defendant the way Duke University is, as of this very week; it can disavow any "naming" that will occur.

The better approach ideally would be to sue the rapists for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In civil court, the defendants don't get proof beyond a reasonable doubt protection, only preponderance of the evidence. While a civil judgment against a 19 year-old college student is difficult to enforce, bankruptcy does not generally discharge a suit for intentional violence. Getting a lawyer willing to sue a college-age rapist is difficult as there is little money in it, though.

Whether women's legal organizations would like to take this project on, I wouldn't know but it sounds like honorable work to me. If I had a million dollars and REALLY good malpractice coverage, I might start such a anti-rape legal clinic myself.

Look - if the only consequence for rape is that your name gets put on a clothesline shirt, then rapists are going to get away nearly scot-free. People can make the judicial system as sensitive as can be, but it can't work unless victims press charges.

Singout, I'm not saying I'd have the courage to stand up in court like that if I was raped, but I hope so.

Powerful is going through with the legal proceedings and pressing charges.

Right, 'cause that's worked so well for women who've been sexually assaulted.

Really, alaric, you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about, do you?

Alaric:

Reading some of the comments above makes it very clear why public naming is powerful. Part of the harm of the assault is the deprivation from the person of their self autonomy, of their control. Naming the perpetrator is an act of reasserting control over the person's life and I suspect a way of acknowledging that it is the perpetrator who should be ashamed not the person who was assaulted.

Some people who would want to do the naming may have also brought charges, or they may believe they could never reasonably succeed in making the charges stick in a court of law. For some the pain of the event may be such that it takes all their courage just to acknowledge it publically albeit anonymously. This is not cowardice but courage.

Chris, I've actually been to a number of sexual assault and rape trials. My impression is that in many jurisdictions there's been a total revolution in how they handle these cases in the past 10 to 20 years. SANE nurses, victim advocates, sensitivity training for judges and prosecutors, more women involved in every step of the process... I'm not saying that's the case everywhere, though.

Chris, what experience in these matters do you have, to make that kind of statement?

Singout, I'm not saying I'd have the courage to stand up in court like that if I was raped, but I hope so.

So, you have no idea what it's like to be raped -- how the experience leaves you in turmoil, how law enforcement and the justice system will further victimize you, how you are surrounded by messages that it's your own fault -- and yet you're willing to judge rape victims as 'cowardly' who do not behave as you 'hope' you would under the same circumstances?

Again, Fuck You.

Singout, I'm not saying I'd have the courage to stand up in court like that if I was raped, but I hope so.

Well, alaric, until you are in that position (and I sincerely hope that you never are), you really need to shut the fuck up and stop judging the women who are. Would I like to see more women come forward and take their rapists to trial? Yes. But you know how we don't do that? --By calling them cowards. Because calling a rape victim a coward will not only fail to get her on your side, it will also make you look like a really, really big fucking asshole.

Cara, I'm not calling rape victims cowardly. But leveling an anonymous accusation, without following through by calling the police ... maybe cowardly is too strong a word. Call it an act of timidity.

Antinome - but the shirts with the full names never get displayed. And even if they were, not every woman is going to see them.