RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceThe collusion continues. Italy, 1992: An 18-year-old girl alleges that she was raped by her driving instructor. The case goes up to the Italian Supreme Court, where it is dismissed. Why? The plaintiff wore jeans, so she must have helped ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
Of course, one club on the street that does make its members go through a mandatory SHARE session is the notorious Tiger Inn. But feel free to perpetuate negative stereotypes against a club whose membership trying as hard any other to help, so long as it furthers your argument.
Fine, but didn't TI begin making those workshops mandatory BECAUSE of this incident and others that happened somewhat concurrently? Too little, too late, perhaps?
This op-ed is absurd. The reason this suit has been viewed with skepticism is not because we're "blaming the victim" or whatnot, but because the plaintiff already went on the record disavowing her charges, withdrawing the complaint, and thereby definitively closing the matter! No charges were filed against her alleged attacker because she already said he didn't do anything wrong.
Let's not get carried away here, shall we?
Akin to the North Carolina Lacrosse debate, this particular case may not be the most straightforward (few cases are), but the author raises interesting questions, what obligation does the University of eating clubs have in preventing and responding to sexual sexual assault? Does the culture of Princeton assume "slut until proven innocent?" and if so, what ramifications would that have for brining legitimate claims of sexual harassment and assault if your character will be publicly attacked?
Great article
Can people realize that this argument is bigger than TI and this specific incident? It is asking to seriously question how people are attacking her before she is giving the chance for a trial.
It seems plain to me that no one regards the girl in question as a "slut." The vast majority of the scuttlebutt I have heard comes from students who don't understand what connection is being postulated between the University and the eating clubs. Tiger Inn is a private corporation sitting on private property, which happens to restrict its membership to undergraduates of Princeton University. The University has no power over TI, and no responsibility for its actions. They are two separate institutions, which happen to be in geographic proximity, and which happen to share a common clientele. The same might be said of Small World Coffee, though admittedly the latter will serve townies. But the point remains that the University can no more evict or control TI than it can the Starbucks or Cartier shops on Nassau St. It is the extremely tenuous e-mail connection that has attracted such scorn, not the girl's sexual conduct.
It is likely the reason the girl took back her charges was because of the all the blame she was receiving in the first place. This is what the op-ed was trying to point out. Our reactions to incidents like these is what matters-- the op-ed isn't "getting carried away", but is instead trying to push for a healthier environment for survivors.
This suit is ridiculous because the girl is suing the university and the club, as opposed to even placing any attack on the guy who supposedly raped her. If there was rape, wouldn't it be far more logical to sue the person who did the rape as opposed to the place where it started? But he's not being sued? Why? I dunno, could it be because the university and the club have much bigger budgets?
yes, he is also being sued
OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY!! Good job cousin on the article!!