Oxford Union president rape allegations - alumni open letter

[FairPhyllis]

The president of the Oxford Union (which is a debating society at Oxford), Ben Sullivan, is currently being investigated over allegations of rape and attempted rape of two undergraduates at the university. He is refusing to resign or suspend his presidency. Speakers are beginning to pull out of events.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10845979/Oxford-Union-boycott-after-president-returns-despite-police-investigation-into-rape-allegations.html

If you are a member of the university or an Oxford alumna/us, and feel strongly about the minimisation of rape and sexual assault "on campus" there is an open letter you can sign here calling for Sullivan to step aside while under investigation. It is organised by the OUSU VP (Women) and other students.

Lrd,

So, what do you think the cultural and legal presumptions should be in allegations of rape?

Lrd,

I was comparing the culture on this thread to a witch hunt, not the culture of rape cases. They are very different.

Buffy,

For starters I think the culture now is 'we don't know', not to disbelieve the woman and feel sorry for the man.

However, again, I will ask you the same as lrd, in your opinion what should both the cultural and legal standard be in the case of a rape allegation?

I think I've covered some of it on this thread, larry, but I think that until the culture changes to accepting that false allegations are very uncommon, and that many rapists are never convicted, the law will struggle. The law can only be as good as the people who are involved in upholding it, and while there are many who are excellent, we all know there are also huge hurdles in the way of bringing a rape charge, let alone, going forward to court.

What worries me most isn't corruption (though that has been an issue). It's that even with conscietious police and dedicated lawyers, some women will feel unable to go through with a rape charge or trial, because the weight of public opinion is against them. They feel the experience will simply be too traumatic.

Until we can change this, I don't think things will get better.

I do believe there is hope, though. In history, law has often been in advance of public opinion, and gradually, public opinion comes around.

larry - no, they are very similar. Neither should be compared to a witch hunt. That is incredibly offensive.

larry - yes - in fact I said so in my post!

Plebgate - totally innocent man, resigned his post

Gross misconduct at work - you'd be suspended pending investigation

Trojan horse school governors all resigned following allegations.

It is the mature, sensible, and normal thing to do (even for non-criminal things like misconduct at work)!

Buffy said it best - rather than standing down, as someone respectful of the post would do, he took option 2.

please - I don't follow the situation you describe? You mean, should the boss make someone stand aside if the accuser isn't willing to go to the police? I think in that situation, it'd be a matter for HR to follow procedures for sexual harrassment but I'd be very unsure of the right way to proceed.

In this situation (on this thread), so far as we understand, someone did go to the police, but either did not bring charges or was told charges could not be brought. That situation would be out of the boss's or HR's hands, I believe.

I believe men are humane enough to stand up for rape survivors.

I believe the majority of men are capable of understanding and condemning rape myths.

I trust my own husband and the men in my life to act with respect towards women, and I would be gutted if I found this not to be the case.

I must be a feminist.

I've tried following this thread. If we presume innocent til proven guilty I'm not sure why he or any person should step aside.

Stepping aside, implies would come back. I'm guessing that isn't actually possible or at least unlikely . Which group would take them back? An accusation taints. I'm not sure anyone deserves that either tbh.

Imo, it's innocent until proven guilty, which should include the victim too. We can manage it for other crimes, but because it's rape, the victim is suddenly making it up If I was accused of a crime which made my colleagues uncomfortable and feel unsafe around me, then I'd want to step aside because I would want them to feel safe in their own workplace. For financial reasons, I don't think I could just do that, though, out of respect for their very understandable feelings, I think I would if I could.

Lrd,

They are not in the least bit similar. On this thread, for many people, to be accused is to be as good ad guilty. In real life, it is a lot more nuanced.

I can only report in detail on one rape case (I was a juror). I cannot give details of juror deliberations but the rapist was convicted despite the rape being 20 years ago and the only real evidence being oral and circumstantial. Initially the victim had been badly treated by the police but once the sapphire unit became involved, she was clearly well supported. On the downside, the accused's rather intimidating brothers were in the visitors' boxes and the accused was in court. She was harshly questioned but so was the accused given a very limited iq and being illiterate. On the whole, though, a mixed jury in every sense gave credence to her powerful oral evidence. This does not, to me, indicate a legal or cultural system overly weighed in one direction. Of course, it is anecdote and I have no idea what other people's experienced have been.

As for me, if I hear someone accused, generallyy first thought is why make it up. Then I would rely on the police and courts. Of course, I appreciate that's my guilty go free. But this is our legal system and I think that if I don't know the protagonists, it is the best we can do and those not declared guilty deserve to be treated as innocent.

That many guilty go free... iPhone.

I disagree.

Where on this thread has someone said that to be accused is as good as to be guilty?!

I feel you are letting your obvious emotion cloud your judgement and, dare I say, you are perhaps reading the posts in a rather biased light based on your own anger and attitude towards the women posting here - whom you characterise as 'witches'.

Lrd,

Your bias is so obvious! I compared some on this thread to witch hunters, not witches. Slight difference.

I've been following this and have skim read the thread- so apologies if I am repeating it but in the workplace if anyone is accused of anything- gross misconduct in work or a criminal matter outside the workplace they are usually automatically suspended. This is as a good thing for all as it doesn't infer guilt in that it happens automatically and it takes any decision making out of the hands of both parties. This is what should've happened here. The Oxford Union would be wise to write some sort of clause into their rules to avoid this sort of thing happening again.

I'm a bit tired of the 'weary voice of reason' posts too.

tobiasfunke - totally agree.

The op linked to a petition calling for him to step aside. That is more than him "offering" to step aside. That is haranguing him. That is trying to bully him.

Larry, if you want to be accurate, you compared this thread to The Crucible. I'm fairly sure I know what that implies. But, if you prefer, you compared people to witch hunters. Do you imagine that is less insulting?

If anything, it is more so.

My bias is, and has always been, in favour of women and of decent men. I firmly believe men are human. You should consider why you are so keen to argue against this position.

Please,

Yes, that has been conveniently overlooked.

please - no, it's not bullying.

It was a petition designed to show him what people thought - the people who cared about the institution he was leading. That is a totally normal way to proceed.

'conveniently overlooked'?!

It's in the darn thread title!