Oxford Union president rape allegations - alumni open letter

"Would they expect any officer under investigation - not charged, not convicted, but under investigation to resign or to be suspended for the duration? Whether it's rape or financial issues or drink driving or murder. The policy and the expectation should be the same. In this case the calls for his resignation and the boycott both seem predicated on the seriousness of the crime concerned. I think that has very worrying implications if we are going to say one crime is 'worse' than others. All crime has victims. All victims suffer."

I was under the impression that some crimes are most certainly considered to be "worse" than others, and that this is in fact reflected in the sentencing guidelines for people convicted of different crimes.

So things like murder, rape, child torture, are considered to be worse than parking offences, shoplifting, non payment of council tax.

So, um, that whole post read a bit odd to me.

I think so too. But if that IS the case then it should have happened and if that is NOT the policy then they either agree to mandate it to be so, backdated to the beginning of this year OR they do nothing. What you cannot justly do is hold one officer to account because of the nature of the allegations.

I think it's reasonable for any officer under investigation for criminal activity to be suspended for the duration, yes. They get reinstated when/if proven innocent.

I am uncomfortable with an organisation behaving as if somebody IS guilty and accusations are founded when neither has been demonstrated in law and this behaviour is made dependent on the nature of the alleged offence. The Union and it's members should agree on their overall view. Would they expect any officer under investigation - not charged, not convicted, but under investigation to resign or to be suspended for the duration? Whether it's rape or financial issues or drink driving or murder. The policy and the expectation should be the same. In this case the calls for his resignation and the boycott both seem predicated on the seriousness of the crime concerned. I think that has very worrying implications if we are going to say one crime is 'worse' than others. All crime has victims. All victims suffer.

I am also deeply uncomfortable that this situation is being used as a symbol of a wider problem. It may very well be so but nothing is proven. To taint this case with everything else that's wrong about the Union is not being just to the man under investigation.

The remarks lower down about this person's background (parents, schooling) are also totally out of order incidentally.

Justice is mandated for criminals and crime. Justice cannot be pre-empted nor is it subtle. There are hard situations on all hands here but I think the members of the union should seek to be fair to all and I don't think that's happening atm.

He is hardly protecting the reputation of the OU if prominent speakers are pulling out of attending because he's still the President, is he.

When I was at Oxford in the mid-1980s, the Oxford Union was well-known to be a repulsive institution, a forum for the worst sort of public school machismo and bullying. It's no surprise that the current President is an individual subject to allegations of the abuse of privilege, or that he doesn't see any need to step aside while these allegations are investigated. I've signed the letter.

Didn't Nigel Evans step down as deputy speaker when he was arrested for similar charges? Charges which he was later found not guilty of. Has it destroyed his life? No, of course it hasn't.

So, what's the difference?

Could it be that Nigel Evans was accused of raping men, whereas this Ben Sullivan has only raped women and should therefore be allowed to continue to run the Union regardless?

Cynical today, but we are constantly told that accused rapists should be given anonymity because it's such a heinous crime, mud sticks etc etc, and yet, I can name 2 people, one acquitted, one found guilty, for whom being charged with rape has had no real problems afterwards.

Sorry to get a bit off topic...Wasn't it at a Glasgow University debating competition that female competitors from other universities got horrible abuse, not based on their arguments but just of the "shut up, whore" variety? Is there a culture of arrogant overconfident male-dominant "let's all bray with laughter at rape jokes and share amusing banter about any woman we view as a slut (all women) because we're the future kings of the world?" in University debating societies generally or have the news reports misrepresented things? If it's an accurate representation, then how come the views of the women plus the "good" men supporting them don't outweigh the views of the arseholes in changing the culture?

Forgive me (posting in haste as out to hear Liz Kelly who's speaking in Oxford today - yay!), but I think there's much more to it.

Some people may think he's a rapist. Others may not. Lots of people will know him personally, as a friend or a peer, and I think it's hard to believe your friend/peer might be a criminal.

But, rapist or not, everyone now knows he doesn't care as much about rape as about himself. Sorry, but it's true. Yes, being president of the Union is lovely, very good for the CV, and so on. But it's also a responsibility. He could so easily have said 'out of respect for the feelings of anyone who has suffered this horrible crime, I will step down, so that the issue need not be discussed or raised in the context of the Union'. Then people who really do not want to be spending their time talking and thinking about rape (and possibly being triggered) would be able to attend.

Titus - exactly.

MorrisZapp - I wouldn't really want to spend my leisure time going to meetings presided over by someone I thought was a rapist. It's a fair bet to say some rape survivors may feel the same way.

He's the one that has tied his personal reputation into that of the Union by using Union funds to defend that reputation - whether for the rape allegations or the drinking club allegations is immaterial.

He's in a public post. Even if he's innocent, but doesn't give a shit about the feelings of women who have survived assault, he presumably is supposed to care about the Union. If he had any respect at all for the Union, he'd withdraw until his name is cleared (if it is), as his continued presence is damaging the Union. The fact that he hasn't withdrawn is evidence that he isn't fit to hold a post there, even by the really shittily low bar of "protecting the reputation of the Union".

Sadly, whether he's innocent or not, it seems clear that he couldn't give a shit about the feelings of survivors.

Only for the duration of the investigation, and mainly because it is a serious allegation with him still having access to other students. I would feel the same if a banker was accused of fraud etc.

Innocent until proven guilty!

Yes I think so. From his perspective though, he is on bail until June 19 and term ( and his presidency)ends days later. He will, I think, have taken a year out of his studies for this. Immaterial of course, if he has committed the offences. A bit tough if he hasn't.

I don't understand exactly how rape victims will be upset to hear of the allegations, but feel better if he steps aside.

I feel as the allegations involve students at the university he should temporarily step aside. I disagree with him resigning he hasn't even been charged yet.

We'll as the Presidency is only for a term, he only managed two weeks of it.

Oh yes, my mistake. But it's still Not On to use union funds to hush up allegations, especially allegations that it seems were true (that he belonged to a dining club).

No that isn't quite right. He was given permission to use union funds to hush accusations of being a member of a laddish club. Then permission was withdrawn, I believe.. Then the complainants came forward about the alleged assaults which took place in Early 2013.

He wasn't using funds to hide rape allegations.

It appears, from one of the links in the OP, that he was trying to use union funds to gag the press, to prevent other students learning about the allegations. If true, that would surely be an improper use of funds - I assume the aims and objectives of the Oxford Union do not include 'paying lawyers to hush up serious allegations about the President'.

He may be innocent of the alleged crime but it would appear he has handled the allegations very badly.

It's the link at the top of the page, in the OP.