“Accusation at Indiana University Triggers Review of Sexual Misconduct Cases” is a New York Times article on drunken sex between two university administrators (whose jobs, as it happens, include adjudicating disputes regarding drunken sex among students). This letter from Jill L. Creighton contains a curious passage:
Jason took advantage of me after I had had too much to drink. … I did not consent to sexual contact with Jason. A verified, contemporaneous text message to this effect was submitted by me as evidence during the impeachment process.
Apparently this was drunken texting sex.
Related:
- “Missoula: Rape and the Justice System in a College Town (a.k.a. majoring in partying and football)”
- Association for Student Conduct Administration (where university administrators interested in student drunken sex gather to drink heavily)
- “Why do Colleges Build Dormitories? And teach half-time?” (from 2003!)
- “California sex-on-campus bill shows that universities should get out of the housing business”
Judging from their photos, neither one of them could expect to have much sex unless their partner was wearing “beer goggles”. In men, morning after regret is usually just that – regret, but you chalk it up as a mistake and move on. In women, one way of dealing with the idea that they could have somehow lowered their standards so much just because they had a few drinks is to think that they didn’t actually and that (despite any inability to recall what actually happened – thus the reliance on the text message) whatever happened must have been non-consensual.
I will forego the obligatory mention of how much money Ms. Creighton could have made by becoming pregnant.
Ms. Creighton admits in her letter that she was instructed to maintain confidentiality, but then proceeds to write an “open letter”. I would certainly not want her involved in any student proceeding where confidentiality was required. Also as a “rape victim” herself, her ability to fairly judge and deal with others who may have been accused of this crime has been severely compromised. It would be appropriate for her to get a job in some other sector of the economy, preferably one where she will be productive instead of parasitic, such as flipping hamburgers. It’s outrageous that college tuition at private universities now tops $50K/ year and the huge administrative staffs at universities are part of the reason why tuition has outrun inflation.
Jill mentions that she has filed a criminal complaint but apparently Jason has not been arrested and I doubt that he ever will be. Somehow the text message that she takes as conclusive proof of her lack of consent is not so persuasive to the authorities. Probably because they are sexist pigs too.
In her letter, she blabs on about “feeling unsafe” , “safe spaces”, etc. This is all patent nonsense (brought on by the legal prohibition against “hostile environments”). There is zero evidence to indicate that she is in any actual danger so long as she refrains from socializing (and getting roaring drunk) with Caseres.
I would laugh off this whole sordid affair and say that these two deserve each other, except for the fact that one way or another the taxpayers will be paying for the whole show.
Tsk, tsk, Jackie, “neither one of them could expect to have much sex unless their partner was wearing “beer goggles”” – that’s pretty pig-sexist of you (and highly contemptuous of the hardworking beer makers, incl. the artisanal ones, besides) ;-))
Legalize prostitution, watch litigation associated with vaginas drop dramatically. Germany has some lenient prostitution laws and I don’t think it is a surprise that their marriage/family law is light on the male’s wallet since competition drops prices as we all know…. 😉
If both were drunk how will the authorities prove that they did it without the consent of Ms. Creighton? She says Jason took advantage of her after she let her guard down but she hasn’t explained how. Which means its hard to tell exactly how it happened.
However what baffles me is the fact that she says sh was told to maintain confidentiality but on the other hand goes ahead and talks about things she knows well might jeopardize her career and position she holds.
“However what baffles me is the fact that she says she was told to maintain confidentiality but on the other hand goes ahead and talks about things she knows well might jeopardize her career and position she holds.”
One possibility is that she feels that her woman/victim/whistleblower status will immunize her from any repercussions from her breach of confidentiality and it’s possible that she is right about that. For example, nothing happened to Jackie (Coakley) the U. Va. rape accuser even though it appears that she totally invented her story.
The other is that she is so eager have her revenge and to destroy Caseres that she doesn’t care if they both go down in flames.
In the past, the tendency was for society to tell these women to “move on” and “get past” these incidents but this is now construed as aiding the “rapists” and sending the wrong message. Instead what happens is that women receive positive reinforcement for being a “victim” – they receive an outpouring of sympathy and attention. This woman was already in a profession where she saw other “victims” receiving such favorable attention and she might have (unconsciously) wanted to receive this kind of care and attention herself. Once people construct their entire identity around such powerful victim narratives they can become an important part of their identity – perhaps even more important than their jobs. If they are lucky, being a victim can BECOME their jobs – “Mattress Girl” became a national celebrity.