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.

Assuming you're still lurking, and unbiased, and for truth and justice, how about you solve LRD's apple problem - which is justice? One apple each, or trying to make sure they both have the same number of apples?

It's a far more straight forward, simple question than anything we've discussed so far, so the answer should be obvious - yet I don't know which is intrinsically fairer, ppplease enlighten me.

Chunky,

Is it a straightforward question? Should parents adjust wills depending in the circumstances of their children or is fairness an even split of assets? Personally I think the latter.

larry - my situation was designed to be about basics, FWIW. Loaves of bread would have been a better example.

But yes, surely, if you have a child who is disabled and needs financial support through life, and another who is not, could you honestly imagine saying 'ahh, fuck it, DC1 will probably die prematurely in poverty, but never mind, DC2 will have that deposit on a house!'

You see, we are not talking about two nice, well-off children to whom the money represents only their parents' love. That is not a replica situation - and it's one in which, of course, you would demonstrate you loved your children equally.

But when we are representing not affection but need and privilege, no, it is much more just to give to the person with greater need and less privilege.

I find the arguments of many on here on fathomable. Here a poor young student who could be one of our children was falsely accused. So little evidence was there he was not even charged. Yet even so unless he is able to exercise the new right to be forgotten after the Google case people will always say there is no smoke without fire. That is very very unjust. I am a feminist because I am against injustice. I lobby for fathers' rights.

It sounds as if some people on here simply have a pro female stance which is utterly at odds with fairness. How sad that is.

I doubt he's a poor young student, Jane. Certainly, he attempted to save his own money by, er, 'borrowing' the Union's.

You do not know there was so little evidence he wasn't charged, do you?

How sad it is that you cannot even read a thread properly.

And what a surprise to find you lobby for fathers' rights (not that he is a father, that I know of? I assume you're just throwing that in there to see what reaction it gets from us horrible feminists).

janeparker, you are being very provocative, deliberately I suspect. You have no idea it was a false allegation.

Not being charged with rape does not equal falsely accused.

Well I don't agree. If any of us were falsely accused why should we lose all we had worked for - that is to let the guilty who falsely accuse win. I am appalled women support that stance. I think it's dreadful and very unfair when feminism is all about fairness for all.

Do we think Annabel C should have resigned as a director of her company when her employee made allegations of sexual harassment against her?

I am not saying these cases are always easy. If we had a female teacher accused of fondling boy pupils - but the boys made it up to get at her as they often do as indeed often do teenage girls about male teachers - should they resign even where no evidence is found to charge them? One big defect is how long these cases take to get to a resolution which at least we have managed to avoid in this university case. Sometimes people are put on leave at tax payer expense for years whilst things are looked into.

So well done done to this boy and I hope he manages to make a success of things.

That's a bit of a straw man argument, jane.

No one ever proposed he should lose 'all [he] had worked for'. This sort of melodramatic response is scaremongering.

We've already answered the Annabel Karmel (I assume that's who you mean by Annabel C) question. You might try reading our posts instead of insulting us.

Of course a female teacher accused of sexual harrassment should (and, I imagine would) be suspended while she was investigated! What planet are you on that you have to ask this question?!

"let the guilty who falsely accuse "

Please stop saying this, Jane.

Been away for a while so didn't realise this had taken off again.

To answer a couple of points:

The Union is a private members' club. Members have a right at any time to question the suitability for office of its officials, in the same way that (for example) the leadership of a political party is accountable to its members. If the leader of a political party were being investigated for similar offences, I think it would be reasonable for the membership to ask them to stand aside until the situation became clearer.

It was an open letter for members, not a petition (the clue is in the title of the thread). It was not open for anyone who was not a member or not part of the OU community to sign. I put it up here because I know that there are a lot of alumni on MN (most alumni are also Union members).

I think Sullivan has missed an opportunity to show that he can do the decent thing. If he had stood aside and subsequently heard that no charges would be brought, he could have got on with his life having shown that he can behave without self-interest for the sake of not damaging the institution he represents. Instead all he has showed is that his main priority is clinging onto his position no matter what.

Being President of the Union shouldn't just be some shiny toy or prize for the undergrad who hacks the most. It does come with some responsibility, which includes knowing when to step away if you're doing harm to the reputation of the institution.

I can't speak on the rape allegation, but this young man has fallen at two hurdles. Trying to use society funds for his own use is corruption at worst misconduct at best. If you seek a position of leadership you should be a servant to the people or organization you which to lead. Which in this instance the service would be to step down for the good of the group.

The difference is between selfish self interest and enlightened self interest. Flipping this on its head this was an opportunity for him to show his quality. In this he failed to demonstrate any thought for anyone besides himself and his own prospects.

If he were my son I would back his choice as it stands. However I would wonder if I had failed to impart a sound ethical foundation and moral core.

'Being President of the Union shouldn't just be some shiny toy or prize for the undergrad who hacks the most.'

But in practice it is really isn't it? There are consistent shenanigans around election to positions at the Union which muddy the waters.

There is no evidence that these were 'false allegations' Jane. There is a difference between the police deciding not to prosecute any reported crime and that being an intentionally false allegation.

Also, speaking more generally, bear in mind that rape is an area where the victim can experience the crime as we would see it in everyday language (I was subjected to sex to which I had not consented) and no crime has been committed in the eyes of the law (I had sex with a woman I genuinely believed had consented).

It is not a binary position: conviction or false accusation. In between as with many crimes, there are many complexities.

Jane are you arguing that teachers who are accused of sexual offences should remain teaching while investigations are ongoing? At the moment (as I understand it) they go on paid leave.

Would you extend this across the board?

I've been lurking on this thread for a while. Just popping on to say how astonished I am at the stupidity of people who don't seem to be able to grasp some fairly basic points about the criminal justice system.

1. Not being convicted or not being charged does not mean a person is not guilty. It means there was not enough evidence to meet the criminal standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt). "Not proven" is a more accurate verdict than "not guilty".

1. People are sometimes found not guilty in criminal cases but in a civil case on the same issue found liable because the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Is this a false allegation?

1. People who are not guilty are sometimes convicted, people who are guilty are sometimes not convicted. The criminal justice system exists to determine whether the person should face criminal punishment. It is not a seer of truth.

1. "Innocent until proven guilty" is an underpinning of the criminal justice system that largely affects the procedures used in the criminal justice system. It is not literally true, that would clearly make no sense. We as individuals are free to believe whatever we want. We need to be careful about expressing what we believe as the court findings are relevant for libel claims but we are free to believe someone was guilty but "got off".

I'm always astonished when people don't seem to be able to grasp these basic points.

A more nuanced point in relation to rape claims is that it is possible that both parties are telling the truth. The woman can know she did not consent but the man had a reasonable belief that she did consent. His reasonable belief may not have any impact on her experience. She may have exactly the same experience of sex without consent as another woman where the rapist had no reasonable belief of her consent.

The criminal justice system is clearly flawed in relation to sexual offences given the woeful conviction rate. Parading around shouting "well done to this boy" is beyond ridiculous and contributes to the problem.

I do disagree with you (sorry!) in that I think innocence or guilt aren't the issues here.

But I think this is utterly spot on and needs repeating:

'A more nuanced point in relation to rape claims is that it is possible that both parties are telling the truth. The woman can know she did not consent but the man had a reasonable belief that she did consent. His reasonable belief may not have any impact on her experience. She may have exactly the same experience of sex without consent as another woman where the rapist had no reasonable belief of her consent.'

This is something I think a lot of people don't get, and why 'enthusiastic consent' is so important.

I said that too, just not as well I used to rant about it in law lectures.

LRD I agree that's not the issue here, I was just responding to the more general point about innocence / guilt. I agree he should have stood down.

Penguins I skipped over your post in my rush to rant. I agree with what you said.

YY, sorry, I do know!

I was doing the highly irritating 'must repeat many times for those who refuse to read the thread' defence, and I should have said so.

It's becoming ingrained. Annoyingly.

I wasn't actually complaining to either of you . It was more a 'yes I agree' comment.

Oh, sorry, I missed your post!

I am falling over myself to agree.

Hi everyone,

Thanks to everyone who brought this thread to our attention. We think this would be a good time to link to our We Believe You Campaign, which exposes some of the myths surrounding rape.

comments from various MNers:

+++++++++++++++++++++++
If he's completely innocent why on earth should his life as he knows it change completely to accommodate a false accusation?

That is UTTERLY unacceptable in my mind, to be forced out of a job simply because of a (false) accusation

Massive publicity before all the evidence has been collected doesn't just cause huge distress for innocent people on the receiving end of a false allegation, it also highlights that some women do lie.

My sympathy lies with the victim, in this case someone who was falsely accused of a vile crime

I would hope most mumsnetters feel utterly sorry for the falsely accused man who hasn't even been charged

If any of us were falsely accused why should we lose all we had worked for
+++++++++++++++++++++++

the double standards here are emormous. yes the Union president is legally innocent but they same applies to his accusers. they did nothing wrong reporting his actions to the police and are not guilty in any way.