Radio 5 phone in on consent at 9.00am

Reading his blog, his attendance wasn't compulsory, it was optional. It seems his issue is that he has taken the invite, (sent via facebook) very personally.

I don't see an issue if he doesn't want to attend the optional lecture. I don't understand why he's made such a big deal about it.

This isn't about heterosexual relationships though, it's about all relationships involving a sexual nature.

He should face consequences for non attendance, simply because no one assumes he is a heterosexual guy.

His reasons for non attendance are a concern for not only the university and the students but society as a whole. How anyone can fail to see this, signals to me that that person who does fail to attend has something to hide.

Exactly Buffy. And complaining about it says a lot about him. And less about the course. Yet we are expected to accept its the course that is the problem, not him.

"He's sending a message that his hurty feelz are more worthy of everyone's attention and concern than the level of sexual assault on campuses." And that shows a sense of entitlement towards women. And a sense of entitlement towards women is what men who sexually harass and assault women have. That is why I have a problem with this bloke. No, he may not go out and harass and sexually assault women but he's not exactly showing his respect for women either.

Dont I think we are all on the same page. I don't believe anyone has asserted he should be forced, but face consequences for choosing not to.

By forced Im meaning something siMilan to a workplace. My boss can't force me to work today and it's right that I have the choice to walk out if I choose. But it's also right that I would need to face the punishment for that.

Yes scallops it may but that's speculation. We can't assume it affects us in the basis "if he doesn't go then he might do something to one of us later". That's flawed logic.

I agree with you dancingbear but given rape/assault likelihood amongst female students goes up to 1 in 3 from a mean chance of 1 in 4 for the general population. Given 55% of the student population is female and a third of that is 18% of total students. If there was a University that had a health and safety record where 18% of students came away injured in someway the whole place would likely be shut down...

I think it's because of the recent studies that have shown horrifying rates of sexual assault on university campuses. Universities can try and influence schools, but they can attempt to reach their own students directly.

Understood and thanks. Hopefully if this sort of thing has an impact that could create a case for targeting younger people.

Regarding your second point, clearly there needs to be a compulsion to do your exams, it's the essence of the thing. IT policies and health and safety regs are about access to facilities rather than access to education. I suppose if the position was - 'we can't force you to go on the consent course - you've a right to access to education - but if you want to stay in our accommodation you'll have to do it', I'd be completely happy.

I suppose from one point of view it could even be beneficial if the course was 'strongly recommended' rather than compulsory. The list of refuseniks would be a lovely self-contained list of 'wankers to avoid'

Womens rights are being encroached on but that's a separate issue... Well no it isn't. It's the reason for the course.

His decision not to go doesn't affect any of us... It may. And the fact he (and you) don't see that is part of the problem.

Sorry, that should say that I find it just slightly uncomfortable to compel adults in this way. Kids in school, it's part of the deal innit.

One question that strikes me as obvious - why is this happening to new undergrads at 18, rather than in school at 15/16? You get to people sooner - before they're more likely to be sexually active and/or have their opinions ingrained - and you don't miss out the 60% (or whatever it is) of people who don't go to university.

As far as the compulsion to hear this stuff goes, would it be possible/reasonable to make it part of the national curriculum? I do have a slight misgiving in principle about making attendance at an ostensibly unrelated course compulsory in order to attain access to something as basic as an education, though would concede that it's probably the lesser evil.

You seem to be suffering cognitive dissonance DontHaveAUsername. On the one hand he shouldn't be forced yet equally if he's willing to submit to University sanctions. What are you defining as force in this instance? If you are saying it's going too far if a squad of heavily armed feminist stormtroopers forcing him at the point of a gun? Or if say the University concerned chooses to expel or suspend him for failing to attend? Does that qualify as force or is it fair for the university to set the terms for attendance?

I don't think anyone here is advocating the point of a gun approach, but a University has a duty of care and a right to take steps to protect itself from litigation. Besides University is unfortunately a place where a great deal of Rape/Sexual Assault takes place. You can argue the workshop approach is not the right way toward, but to expect to be taken seriously I'd expect to see solid data indicating such programs have not seen any decrease in rapes/assaults, and I'm not sure any do at this stage as such programs are still relatively new.

In short something has to be done to reduce these horrible crimes you are either on board on that point or you are not. If you have any reasoned or erudite suggestions on how to best achieve this I'm all ears.

Dont - society constrains us all the time - there are lots of things that I'm perfectly capable of doing that I'm not allowed to do, because society realises that not all individuals are good at knowing what they are capable of. Because of that, even though I probably could hitch up my gas stove, I'm not allowed to. And the people that are go on yearly courses to make sure that they still can.

This means that society as a whole is safer, because no-one is going round thinking they know it all about hitching up gas pipes when then don't, no-one is happily wandering into your home and leaving it set to explode, no matter how sure they are that they can do it.

This is the same. We are asking him (all freshers) to go on a course, so we can be a bit more sure that they know what consent is. It doesn't matter how sure he is that he knows all about it, society will be safer if he, and all his compatriots go on a little course and have a reminder.

I wouldn't trust a non-gas-safe engineer to do my gas, yet you're expecting all these students to trust that this guy knows when he's crossing the consent line. Imagine if he's planning to be in healthcare, how important it is to understand consent! I've met plenty of HCPs who could also do with a refresher!

"I really wonder why you want to defend this man so much. His rights aren't being encroached on, whereas women's are. Where is your outrage for that?"

Womens rights are being encroached on but that's a separate issue, you're acting like him not going to this class is actually causing their rights to be encroached.

"He should not get to decide though, that's the problem. He is not the server. He is the receiver."

Why shouldn't he have the right to choice? His decision not to go doesn't affect any of us, it only affects him in so far as that he'll have to accept the punishment for non attendance. If he's decided he's willing to take that punishment rather than go, it's up to him. He shouldn't be forced.

DD has excellent taste then

I have it on a T-shirt. Which makes me very happy indeed.

"If you're happy and you know it.."...keyboard decorating stuff.

I know I'm not - had half an eye on the Australia versus Scotland match anyway.

I think some of you are not taking this recent exchange seriously....

Did it. They love it. Thanks Bert.