#shameonyouwarwick

[smcbride]

Warwick Police haven't prosecuted anyone for these vile rape threats and Warwick uni are now letting (some of?) the perpetrators back in to study at the same university alongside those they discussed threatening to rape.

Would you be happy sending your child here?

Warwick students suspended over rape threats allowed to return earlyly*_

I wonder if one universities 'gain' (them not returning) may be another one's loss (they enrol elsewhere to complete their studies) though?

the point is they and others will think twice now hopefully
also - I could be wrong but they have been named on The Tab which I believe is read in many or several universities?

so it appears it has been a voluntary decision on the part of the 2 boys
www.theguardian.com/education/2019/feb/05/warwick-university-says-threat-pair-wont-return

and also one of the victims says the university has not bothered to contact her at all to let her know this

Two men

sorry this is the quote...

"But after Croft’s announcement, one of the women targeted told the Boar, the university’s student newspaper: “I think it’s important to remember this isn’t a victory for any of us really. We’ve had to fight this and have been through a horrendous process, the men have wasted a year of their lives and haven’t been able to just move on because the university made a commitment to take them back that was simply untenable.

She added: “It’s still a sad time to be a Warwick student.”

Having studied at Warwick for numerous years one thing I can definitely tell you is that all they care about is MONEY

I'm delighted they are not returning. It shows that it is worth sticking up for what you believe is right. If enough people do it, they gain leverage.

I've had a lovely email from the department Head which would have welcomed my Dd this September. She makes it very clear that she, and most of her peers, were appalled by the way senior management handled this debacle; my heart goes out to them tbh.

I suspect that the men who have decided not too return are more worried about their own safety than the sensibilities of the women they threatened.

Cowardly lumps!

I suspect that the men who have decided not too return are more worried about their own safety

Which is pretty much the worst possible outcome. It's essentially vigilante justice out of a Western movie: the crooked sheriff says that the government officials visiting from out of town are welcome to do their work, but he can't be responsible for what might happen while his back is turned, and some of them boys are mighty light on the trigger. Cut to shifty man lurking by bar fingering the hammer on his Colt Single Action Army. It would amount to the university outsourcing its discipline procedures to the mob.

It also means that if one of the men, or someone in a similar position in the future, held the university's hands to the fire and said they were going to return, and the university's duty of care included them (which the VC actually said, in terms, in his letter last week) then the university would have no choice but to make arrangements to accommodate them.

As I say: the best outcome would be the process doing its thing through to the bitter end, without having to rely on either the offenders' unwillingness to push their luck, or the campus brandishing of pitchforks and torches to have its effect, or both.

I agree, ReflectentMonatomism.

I'm afraid I'm being stupid here, but I have no idea what you mean when you talk about "the process doing its thing through to the bitter end", ReflectentMonetarism. I completely agree about this being the wrong way to have gone about things, but hadn't the process already "done its thing", such that the complainants felt they had no option but to make this huge public fuss about it and shame Warwick's senior management about the result of the appeal process? Or do you mean something different?

Although I have been extremely disappointed in the way the management team have dealt with this manner - I have to say that I have been incredibly impressed with the way DS, his friends and their lecturers have taken a stand.
DS has always been v vocal in what he thinks is unacceptable in the way women are often treated so I wasn’t surprised at his anger. But I think it’s also been a very useful lesson in how to always ensure that the well being of the victim (or potential victim) is always at the centre of any investigation / action.
The whole thing will undoubtably have had a significant impact on the way he would handle any investigation if it came up in a place of work in the future.
I am just very sorry that those young women had to face this dreadful situation for this wider debate to happen.
He still loves Warwick - as does his wider group of male / female friends.

I'm afraid I'm being stupid here, but I have no idea what you mean when you talk about "the process doing its thing through to the bitter end"

As things stand, in paper the university will accept the students back next year if they arrive. They have said they will not return: that is, presumably, not binding on them. Things might calm down. People forget. Then they can turn up with the letter saying "one year ban", re-enrol, and the whole dispute starts again.

What should have happened is that if the university wants rid of these students, they should have expelled them. Once they are expelled, they cannot re-enrol. They then have various routes of appeal, but they would have to win one of those appeals. No win, no enrol. Under the circumstances I think it unlikely they could win, but I might be wrong.

So the problem is "what can the students do now, in the absence of new hearings". Had they been expelled, they could do nothing. in the current situation, they can re-enrol when their formal ban/suspension expires, and there is nothing formally the university can do about it.

Hence why I say it's unsatisfactory. At the moment, the only reason they aren't coming back is because they have said they aren't coming back. They might change their mind.

I am left wondering what will be of the students who made the comments? They will no doubt be looked after by mum and dad however I know Warwick were, or had planning on doing work with them around their behaviours. This obviously wont happen now, as they have toddled off and I know it would have been impossible for them to go back whilst the women were still there too. The behaviours already exhibited and the risks they may have posed will now not be addressed. As someone who works with offenders and victims of abuse I know that simply shoving the problem off elsewhere does nothing.

I know it would have been impossible for these students to return whilst the women they spoke about were still there but there’s no redress now. Someone commented on their possibility of returning the Warwick, that won’t happen. Will they get a place elsewhere, that’s possible having had no work done to address their behaviour and it’s impact.

There’s lots of “Warwick has a rape culture” I’m struggling with that. It’s a very emotive and loaded term. To me rape culture means pervasive and systemic support and trivialisation of rape. The students were punished by their ten year ban. The reducing of that was obviously stupid. It wasn’t made solely by management but a panel of students/academics and management.

Warwick were, or had planning on doing work with them around their behaviours

Warwick University are not the probation service, nor CAMS, so the idea that they can do effective therapeutic work on unwilling subjects is rather odd. How would the university deal with their simply saying "fuck off, I'm not taking part?" What would be the sanction?

It's also rather evasive in the statements as to whether the ban was on living on campus (something of a non threat, as many/most students live in Leamington or Coventry, not in university accommodation) or on being on campus. Given there was extensive concern in the letters from the heads of school about dealing with staff refusals to teach and segregating them from other students, it appears it was not a ban from campus. On the face of it, there was no ban from participating in courses:

For the individuals subject to the University’s major disciplinary processes, being prohibited from living on the University campus for a fixed period of time;

That doesn't sound like a ten year ban from campus, that sounds like a ten year ban from university housing. Which doesn't protect the women at all. If indeed that is the case, then Warwick were being disingenuous: a ten year ban from living in hall is basically a slap on the wrist.

Its not an odd suggestion. I know they’re not CAMHS (even though at their age they would not have accessed CAMHS - they’d be too old) or Probation. There is a welfare service at the Uni which has access to a varied group of professionals who engage in therapeutic. As a practitioner myself I know of many charitable organisations who work with offenderssl if internal provision isn’t available. Yes, they couldn’t have forced then to engage but it was a condition on them returning, so had they not engaged they couldn’t return (might have been a load of bullshit I don’t know) but better that it’s attempted surely.

Pumpkin if the students feel there is a rape “culture” then something is clearly wrong. As far as I am aware no one has described it as such unless they are or have experienced it for themselves. You may struggle with it but you can’t deny or ignore their feelings. If you really want to do something find out where some young men get these attitudes from and also why they feel the need to bully and intimidate their fellow female students and denigrate them in this way. I suspect there are plenty more subjects still there to work on without having the main perpetrators of this case there or not.

ReflectentMonatomism - thank you for your explanation, now I see what you mean. Yes. And I'm sorry for getting your name wrong last time round

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/06/duty-of-care-warwick-students-university-sexism-racism-rape

Sounds like the students have had enough and no one is listening to them. Money talks louder it seems. Doubt the senior management will be there much longer at this rate with so much media and public outrage now about their decision making processes. I imagine lots of unhappy parents making their voices heard

I’m more than happy to agree that Warwick’s management has handled this badly, but that Guardian article comes across as quite spiteful and reeks of grievance journalism. The writer has conflated the current issues with a load of other things (drunken rugby teams, accommodation shortages, not enough seats in the library) which are common to virtually every university in the country, and then peppered the whole thing with vague allusions to “many more harrowing stories”. I simply don’t buy the claim that individual tutors are hearing stories of five sexual assaults a week. That would be inconceivable in any U.K. university (I am told of such cases once every two or three years) and Warwick ranks as one of the safest in the country.

GC yes I found that article very strange, you have articulated what I was thinking.