Just wanted to give '71 another reason to complain about the Honor Code

[lambdacoug]

Not sure I follow your logic. They are also adopting an amnesty clause. Did you miss that?

What would you have done differently?

Sexual assault victims need amnesty from HC violations? Amnesty is for offenders, not victims. It apportions blame to the victim and then piously grants amnesty.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Sexual assault victims need amnesty from HC violations? Amnesty is for offenders, not victims. It apportions blame to the victim and then piously grants amnesty.

Huh?

You aren't making any sense.

[lambdacoug]

Huh?

You aren't making any sense.

More than likely you're just trolling. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If you are serious, however, then at this point I can only assume you don't understand the meaning of the word amnesty and how it might be inappropriate to speak of granting amnesty to victims of sexual assault.

[BigPiney]

I believe the amnesty is for other honor code offenses that occurred in conjunction, like drugs or alcohol.

[Jeff Lebowski]

More than likely you're just trolling. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If you are serious, however, then at this point I can only assume you don't understand the meaning of the word amnesty and how it might be inappropriate to speak of granting amnesty to victims of sexual assault.

I am the one that is trolling?

Here is the exact recommendation from the report:

2. Add to the Sexual Misconduct Policy an amnesty statement regarding possible Honor Code violationsoccurring at or near the time of a reported sexual assault.


3. Ensure that the Title IX Office does not share information with the Honor Code Office except in the
following *circumstance: When a BYU student respondent accused in a sexual-assault case is found
responsible for violating BYU’s Sexual Misconduct Policy, the Title IX Office may share information
about that student respondent with the Honor Code Office for the limited purpose of allowing it to
determine disciplinary action; in such cases, the Title IX Office will redact the names of complainants,
victims, and witnesses from all information before the information is shared.

Also, from the Appendix:

 Names of reporting students will not be given to the Honor Code Office Reporters of assault given amnesty/immunity and will not be subject to university discipline
 Amnesty extends to witnesses

So basically, they want to still be able to report THE PERSON ACCUSED OF THE ASSAULT to the HC office, while hiding the names of the victims and providing complete amnesty to victims and witnesses. You don't think that is reasonable? You think they should not investigate and potentially kick out sexual predators from campus?

From your post:

That makes it seem like they're not really fixing the problem, just masking the names from the HC office so they can't enforce the HC with relation to the victims, but they would if they could.

Sorry, but that is not a rational, defensible response.

And this:

Sexual assault victims need amnesty from HC violations? Amnesty is for offenders, not victims. It apportions blame to the victim and then piously grants amnesty.

You can't provide amnesty to victims because that would make them offenders? That doesn't make any sense logically. The whole point of amnesty is to protect victims.

[lambdacoug]

Sorry, but that is not a rational, defensible response.

Yeah, you're right on that. I apologize, but why would the Title IX documentation even have a need to strike out anything at all? Doesn't seem right.

So basically, they want to still be able to report THE PERSON ACCUSED OF THE ASSAULT to the HC office, while hiding the names of the victims and providing complete amnesty to victims and witnesses. You don't think that is reasonable? You think they should not investigate and potentially kick out sexual predators from campus?

You can't provide amnesty to victims because that would make them offenders? That doesn't make any sense logically. The whole point of amnesty is to protect victims.

So at this point, you've clarified that you don't understand amnesty. In order for amnesty to be granted, an offense must have been committed by the person granted amnesty. If you believe that being sexually assaulted requires a grant of amnesty, I don't have anything else to say to you. It's really pretty simple, no offense committed, no amnesty required.

[lambdacoug]

I believe the amnesty is for other honor code offenses that occurred in conjunction, like drugs or alcohol.

I can see that, but I have a hard time swallowing taking any action against a victim of sexual assault even if something like drugs or alcohol were involved. It seems callous and heartless to take action against a victim of sexual assault because drugs or alcohol were involved.

EDIT: in fact, it feels a lot like victim blaming. "you know, it never would have happened if you hadn't gotten drunk, so we need to punish you for that, oh wait, nevermind, we'll grant you amnesty for that"

[Jeff Lebowski]

I believe the amnesty is for other honor code offenses that occurred in conjunction, like drugs or alcohol.

Nope. That is not the way I understand the proposal. Complete amnesty for victims and witnesses. In other words, there will be no report between the Title IX office and the HC office except for the perpetrator of the assault.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yeah, you're right on that. I apologize, but why would the Title IX documentation even have a need to strike out anything at all? Doesn't seem right.

So at this point, you've clarified that you don't understand amnesty. In order for amnesty to be granted, an offense must have been committed by the person granted amnesty. If you believe that being sexually assaulted requires a grant of amnesty, I don't have anything else to say to you. It's really pretty simple, no offense committed, no amnesty required.

I can see that, but I have a hard time swallowing taking any action against a victim of sexual assault even if something like drugs or alcohol were involved. It seems callous and heartless to take action against a victim of sexual assault because drugs or alcohol were involved.

I think I am beginning to see the cause of your misunderstanding. Nobody has ever been punished by the HC office simply for being the victim of an assault. If that were the case, then I would agree with what you have said. What has happened in the past is that in the process of reporting an assault, various HC violations came to light (not the act of being assaulted, but drug use, etc.) which were reported to the HC office. That will no longer happen.

In other words, they are NOT offering amnesty for being an assault victim. Amnesty is not, and has not, been needed in that case. They are offering amnesty for anything else that may come to light in the process of reporting an assault.

[All-American]

I think I am beginning to see the cause of your misunderstanding. Nobody has ever been punished by the HC office simply for being the victim of an assault. If that were the case, then I would agree with what you have said. What has happened in the past is that in the process of reporting an assault, various HC violations came to light (not the act of being assaulted, but drug use, etc.) which were reported to the HC office. That will no longer happen.

In other words, they are NOT offering amnesty for being an assault victim. Amnesty is not, and has not, been needed in that case. They are offering amnesty for anything else that may come to light in the process of reporting an assault.

I think that's mostly right, but it's doubtlessly been true that victims have not come forward because they thought that the very act of being sexually assaulted was something that might lead to honor code punishment. For example, victims may not have come forward because they were worried the HC office might not believe them when they say it wasn't consensual. It's clear enough, however, that the amnesty is not limited to situations where a victim may have broken the honor code on the path to being assaulted.

[lambdacoug]

I think I am beginning to see the cause of your misunderstanding. Nobody has ever been punished by the HC office simply for being the victim of an assault. If that were the case, then I would agree with what you have said. What has happened in the past is that in the process of reporting an assault, various HC violations came to light (not the act of being assaulted, but drug use, etc.) which were reported to the HC office. That will no longer happen.

In other words, they are NOT offering amnesty for being an assault victim. Amnesty is not, and has not, been needed in that case. They are offering amnesty for anything else that may come to light in the process of reporting an assault.

You cannot possibly know that. We all certainly hope that's the case, but I would not be surprised to find cases where it has happened. This is the university, afterall, that is owned by the religion that still has publications saying death is preferable to losing one's virtue even in cases of sexual assault. Put that together with the fact that the HC office is often made light of for being overzealous, and I can see how it would be possible. Like you though, I don't have any proof of misconduct, or otherwise, and I hope cool, compassionate heads have always prevailed.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You cannot possibly know that. We all certainly hope that's the case, but I would not be surprised to find cases where it has happened. This is the university, afterall, that is owned by the religion that still has publications saying death is preferable to losing one's virtue even in cases of sexual assault. Put that together with the fact that the HC office is often made light of for being overzealous, and I can see how it would be possible. Like you though, I don't have any proof of misconduct, or otherwise, and I hope cool, compassionate heads have always prevailed.

Yes, I can't prove a negative. I also can't prove that you aren't an axe murderer.

[Art Vandelay]

Yes, I can't prove a negative. I also can't prove that you aren't an axe murderera-hole.

Go back to his original moniker and I think data will weigh heavily in your favor.

lambda>>>>>>atheist

[lambdacoug]

Yes, I can't prove a negative. I also can't prove that you aren't an axe murderer.

Good thing I wasn't demanding proof of what you were saying, that would have been crazy.

[byu71]

Everytime this thread pops up it is a proud moment for me. Thanks