Letters to the Editor: March 2, 2010

Fostering connections on campus

Regarding “Why residential colleges should be mandatory for upperclassmen” (Thursday, Feb. 11, 2010):

While Jason Kaplan makes an interesting point, I can’t help but feel that as a sophomore, he only sees one side of the equation. I personally think that there is plenty of continuity between the residential colleges and upperclass housing and eating clubs. Many of the people I knew from my two residential colleges (I switched from Mathey to Whitman) ended up in my eating club. And besides that, there are various student organizations that provide continuity through all four years, such as sports teams and performance groups. But I personally enjoyed being able to move out of the residential college because it gave me a chance to meet new people and see new faces. Perhaps Kaplan’s idea would be more relevant in an age where we could not keep in touch via Facebook and e-mail.

Lauren Clark ’10

Moral compass needed in ‘Prince’ columns

Regarding “The real ‘Sex on a Saturday Night’ ” (Monday, Feb. 22, 2010):

I would like to express my overwhelming sense of shock and rage that such an article would be published by this University’s newspaper. The issue of whether a woman is at fault for her rape, no matter the circumstance, is legally indisputable. A woman is never to be blamed for such an act. This is made clear by the date-rape laws of New Jersey. To suggest in a published article that a woman should be held responsible is both misleading for males — since they will be prosecuted for sexual relations with an intoxicated partner — and extremely offensive to any girl who has experienced date rape. Clearly the author of this article and the editors of this paper cannot even begin to comprehend the damage that is inflicted when an individual who has experienced sexual assault is subject to such accusations. The content of this article is unprofessional and staggeringly ignorant and lacks any moral compass.

Isabel Flower ’13

A consistent definition of consent

Regarding “What constitutes consent?” (Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2010):

Sexual Harassment/Assault Advising, Resources, and Education (SHARE)’s overblown rhetoric obscures the substance of its disagreement with Neagu: Can one consent to sex if one is too drunk to remember one’s actions the next day? The answer is not obviously “no.” If consent is to have any meaning, it must be defined as a verbal or non-verbal sign rather than an event that happens only inside a person’s head. Otherwise, it would be impossible in principle to know whether a partner was consenting: He could always mean “no” even as he says yes.

People who are unconscious can never give consent because they are incapable of communicating. People who are conscious but intoxicated, however, routinely consent to all sorts of interactions: They make purchases, exchange information and so forth. Often, they do things they will later regret, things they would not do if they were sober. But their rights have not been violated. I cannot sue a friend (or company) that prevails upon me to break my vegan diet by eating cheese in a moment of drunken desire.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

In the case Neagu describes, the “victim,” her friend, “does not remember anything.” For all she knows, she may have expressed consent, or even been the hated “initiator.” So how can SHARE be so sure who raped whom? For the same reason that the literature SHARE distributes has so very little to say about same-sex encounters: The assumption is that men want sex and women don’t, so men take it by force. The culture of fear and paranoia associated with this worldview deserves to be questioned.

Jacob Denz ’10