Law Student Faces Disciplinary Action - Abertay Uni (Dundee)

Rape myths don’t really form part of a law degree, certainly not criminal law. The pp who said it’s the jury you have to be worried about is correct. Most of the population believes rape myths.

It’s quite important to clarify what is meant by rape myths though. To me, they mean a belief that the offender is less blameworthy if the victim engaged in certain behaviour: wearing certain clothes, going on a date or flirting with him, not fighting back, being promiscuous. Those are very harmful myths and stop rapists being convicted because the jury sympathises with the rapist and thinks the sex must have been consensual.

Then there are things that make someone more vulnerable to being attacked: being drunk or on drugs (both sexes), leaving drinks unattended in bars, walking alone in areas with high crime, going to someone’s house when you don’t know them, inviting someone to your own house when you don’t know them. Those are things that are unsafe but can’t always be classed as rape myths because they aren’t necessarily mythical. Also, while some might cross the line into being treated as rape myths (eg going to someone’s house), something like walking alone in the dark is actually more likely to result in a conviction. The classical imagined rape victim is a virtuous woman dragged screaming into the bushes by a stranger. Very few rapes happen in those circumstances but that is still what people think of when they think of rape. So telling women not to walk alone in the dark is about risk-minimisation, not blaming. Avoiding excessive alcohol is a good tip for both sexes. I know men who have been robbed and beaten while incapacitated through drink. I shudder at how vulnerable I have been when drunk too.

To get back on track, I think Lisa Keogh is allowed to have these views and potentially be challenged on them. She shouldn’t be subject to disciplinary procedures if she disagrees with someone. From my experience in academia, many of the young students have a natural hostility towards mature students and privately (sometimes not so privately) look down on or ridicule them. I wonder if some of that is going on here. Also, a mature student with life and work experience and two kids is much less likely to swallow all the bollocks spouted by Miss She/Her and her ilk. She’s also likely to have opinions on stuff that differ from those of the liberal elite.

And like you, I have taken risks that the police for instance regularly tells us not to. And like you I believe that doing so is not an invitation to an attacker. But I do think that "taking risks" can result in unwanted consequences and some risks I would strongly advise my own children to avoid.

I think it's worth thinking about why the example people use for this is walking through a dark park. That isn't really a high risk thing to do except in unusual circumstances. But there are choices we can make that are risky. Like all crime, there is significant correlation between excessive alcohol use and criminal behaviour and bing victimised. It's a good thing to know this, and doesn't mean we think that you can control everything by making good choices.

Who knows whether that's what she meant or not, but the fact that you can't have the discussion without it being a victim blaming promotor of rape myths is pretty problematic IMO.

Re dispelling myth rapes it's of course the jury who determines guilt.

Scotland used to have very restricted eligibility rules- just about anyone with a law degree or working in a legal office or married to a solicitor or advocate could get out of jury service. They have been relaxed but are still more restricted than in England. No practising solicitor or advocate is eligible and remains ineligible for 5 years after retirement. The restrictions apply to police, including civil staff, Sheriff Officers, court administrative staff, including shorthand writers, prison officers.

Anyone who held a judicial or tribunal post (including all of the civil tribunals) is ineligible for 10 years.

So teaching dispelling rape myths as part of an undergraduate LLB degree won't take you very far as the vast majority of law graduates will never be eligible to sit on a jury.

The course should start from the POV that the majority of students will believe the myths to be fact.

Exactly. I can't believe it's not a fundamental part of the course. It certainly should be

Should it? The law graduates on here may know better but I would assume that law school only covers the technical side, not the ethics of whether women should be able to walk down dark streets or wear short skirts without a predator taking it as an invitation

I had no interest in criminal law so only did the very general compulsory Criminal Law course. I don't know if this is considered in particular specialised modules but it seems to me this is criminology or psychology or sociology or "gender studies"- not law.

I don't see any particular reason for requiring undergraduate law students to consider this as a,"fundamental" part of their course. This seems relevant as professional on the job training for those who elect to go into the Fiscal service /CPS.

A fair number of mothers torture, abuse and even murder their children. A small number of female nursery workers have sexually abused children.

Which is why we have laws and practices around safeguarding, and why mothers are regularly seen by health visitors etc in the early years of a child's life. And why schools - and teachers - are required by law to report suspected abuse etc etc.

Very few mothers/female nursery workers are abusive, but we have a society with processes which are based on the potential for every mother/nursery worker to be so.

a member of academic staff is relentlessly pursuing a complaint against a student for articulating similar biological beliefs in a seminar

This is utterly utterly appalling.

I've been complained about - to the point of an investigation and potential disciplining - by students (for alleged non-existent transphobia). And as much as I think the group of students behind the complaint were total cowards as they insisted on their anonymity, I would never pursue a disciplinary complaint against a student, unless that student has been harassing me outside of seminars or lectures.

I'm actually not that invested in what they think - I'm invested in them thinking well.

But for a lecturer to pursue a complaint against a student for what that student thinks about sex & gender - well, that's just out of order.

I suppose if a male student started spouting rapey or pornographic or sexually harassing things in a seminar, I would require them to stop, and I'd inform their personal tutor, and I'd probably ask them to stay behind to as what was going on.

But to pursue a student over her or his politics? or personal beliefs? that's unreasonable & borderline abuse of power.

[quote MissBarbary]This feed has more information including this post.

If, and that's a big if of course, Keogh did say this I doubt you(general you) would want her prosecuting sex crimes.

It still doesn't merit her being reported for disciplinary action just for saying it unless it did dissolve into personal attack or aggressive language but we don't have that information.

mobile.twitter.com/ThatBenGunn/status/1393623118586040322[/quote]
Did you notice that this student walked back her earlier claims here? She had asserted that Lisa Keogh had said women "deserved" to be raped if they took risks. Yet here she says that her words "suggested" that women deserved it. Which indicates that Lisa Keogh's actual words were merely interpreted in this vein.

And like you, I have taken risks that the police for instance regularly tells us not to. And like you I believe that doing so is not an invitation to an attacker. But I do think that "taking risks" can result in unwanted consequences and some risks I would strongly advise my own children to avoid.

That doesn't mean I think they deserve to be attacked if they take these risks. It's simply a pragmatic approach to safeguarding. Certain consequences can be avoided if some risks are avoided.

As for Keogh, let's say she had said that women who took certain risks "deserved" to be raped (and used that word). In my view, disciplinary action for expressing a sincerely held belief shared by the majority of women (and men) in a classroom debate as part of a law degree is just plain wrong. This myth is dredged up regularly by defence lawyers in rape cases. Much as I might like to discipline those lawyers, it's perfectly legal for them to do so. Just because her fellow students were offended by her words is no reason to discipline her for her contribution to the debate.

Finally, if I've learned one thing from my lawyer friends it's that a good lawyer does right by their client, even if that means arguing things you don't personally believe. We really don't know if the QC in the recent For Women Scotland case truly believes that women are not discriminated on the basis of their sex but only on the basis of their role in life. But it was an argument that served her purpose. So she made it.

So even if Keogh sincerely believes risk-taking victims were asking for it, that doesn't mean she couldn't successfully prosecute a sex crime (if she was otherwise qualified obviously).

I was watching Promising Young Woman recently and the number of ‘nice’ guys who will take advantage of a drunk woman is scary, despite the general public knowledge that this is not okay and the risk of a criminal record. Even in America where there is death penalty, telling people not to kill doesn’t work.

I have encountered problems while walking so I try to take the safest route home. It’s not possible to eliminate all risk of course and I’m probably at more risk from acquaintances than strangers. However, I think that we should still teach basic safety without being accused of victim-blaming. Surely we still tell kids not to get into cars, never to give out details online, never to meet a stranger that you’ve got to know over the Internet? Yet the cause of child abuse is people deciding to abuse children.

And I certainly don't believe students shouldn't be able to express their faulty views about rape in a legal class where people were making a theoretical point personal, and rightly have them challenged and called out as misguided. I don't believe that expressing an ignorant majority view about "self protection" should be grounds for disciplinary action and result in people paraphrasing it to make it sound worse on social media.

I made the point because you (general you) would generally not be defending someone who appears to buy into rape myths.

I don't agree with people who buy into rape myths (the majority of the population). I don't think that it means they are beyond redemption in terms of the careers they can practice. I believe people can learn and that rape myths can be tackled. That's a very "cancel culture" kind of worldview, MissBarbary. Surprised at your posts on this.

but it annoys me when everyone jumps on warnings to avoid walking alone in certain areas and says ‘let’s tell men not to rape instead’. Wow, how ingenious. I do wonder if they will listen. Of course, most rapes aren’t by strangers so warnings and things only apply to those that are

I've spent decades walking home, alone at night in various European cities. I've never encountered any problems. On the other hand how often have you read accounts of elderly women being attacked and raped in their own homes?

The cause of rape is not my deciding, (carelessly no doubt in some people's opinion) to go for walks at night or elderly women (sensibly, no doubt in some people's opinion deciding to stay at home with a cup of tea).

The cause of rape is men deciding to rape.

I made the point because you (general you) would generally not be defending someone who appears to buy into rape myths.

But some people see the safety argument as always being victim-blaming which is not necessarily true

I'm not sure what point you are making. I'm well aware of this argument. If and that is a big if, the tweet is an accurate report it seems to me to stray into victim blaming territory. What does " women need to take accountability" mean?

Before Covid I regularly walked home alone late at night. During lockdown I regularly had my daily trudge alone in the dark. How does Keogh think I should account for myself?

[quote MissBarbary]This feed has more information including this post.

If, and that's a big if of course, Keogh did say this I doubt you(general you) would want her prosecuting sex crimes.

It still doesn't merit her being reported for disciplinary action just for saying it unless it did dissolve into personal attack or aggressive language but we don't have that information.

mobile.twitter.com/ThatBenGunn/status/1393623118586040322[/quote]
Safety precautions are a separate thing from culpability and it’s unhelpful to conflate the two. I would absolutely say that it’s not wise for a woman to walk through a dark park but that does not in any way reduce the culpability of the perpetrator. They deliberately seek out vulnerable people which is reprehensible. There are a few things we can do to make ourselves a little safer. But some people see the safety argument as always being victim-blaming which is not necessarily true.

Maybe Keogh said bad things. At the moment we don't know. Maybe someone is taking advantage of this lack of information.

I agree.

The majority of people believe rape myths. Its how they get to be so pervasive, they are a majority belief.

If training for lawyers doesn't tackle rape myths, thats the core problem. The course should start from the POV that the majority of students will believe the myths to be fact.

Exactly.

This is ridiculous.

Dh has just read it out to me in disbelief too.

I did a martial art that was just mixed sex; men always had to act differently when they played us. Some women could out wit the men via nimbleness or flexibility but at the end of the day, all of the men who were serious knew they could over power us.

I could take down a few nervous beginners but only as they didn't know what they were doing.

At the cost of putting up a few tweets and then deleting them, someone has rubbished Lisa Keogh and has spread enough doubt for people to row over what Keogh might have said. No proof but now energy is being deflected from discussing what happened.

Maybe Keogh said bad things. At the moment we don't know. Maybe someone is taking advantage of this lack of information.

She was called a cis white girl, and also told that her comments were transphobic. There is more of this to come out.

The course should start from the POV that the majority of students will believe the myths to be fact.

Exactly. I can't believe it's not a fundamental part of the course. It certainly should be.

The majority of people believe rape myths. Its how they get to be so pervasive, they are a majority belief.

If training for lawyers doesn't tackle rape myths, thats the core problem. The course should start from the POV that the majority of students will believe the myths to be fact.

Isn't that the whole point of learning to be a lawyer? That someone may have bought into a rape myth and can be put right? During the time they are actually learning about the law? Around sex offences? And how to represent victims, or offenders?

There has to be more to it, surely. You don't get 'investigated' for this.

Your words:

If, and that's a big if of course, Keogh did say this I doubt you(general you) would want her prosecuting sex crimes.

There are a lot of people I don't think should be prosecuting sex crimes. Many of them are far worse than a woman on a general law course who unthinkingly buys into rape myths, as probably a large proportion of the other students also do. The thing about rape myths is that most people believe them.