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.

[noddingoff]

Sorry to get a bit off topic...Wasn't it at a Glasgow University debating competition that female competitors from other universities got horrible abuse, not based on their arguments but just of the "shut up, whore" variety? Is there a culture of arrogant overconfident male-dominant "let's all bray with laughter at rape jokes and share amusing banter about any woman we view as a slut (all women) because we're the future kings of the world?" in University debating societies generally or have the news reports misrepresented things? If it's an accurate representation, then how come the views of the women plus the "good" men supporting them don't outweigh the views of the arseholes in changing the culture?

[CaptChaos]

Didn't Nigel Evans step down as deputy speaker when he was arrested for similar charges? Charges which he was later found not guilty of. Has it destroyed his life? No, of course it hasn't.

So, what's the difference?

Could it be that Nigel Evans was accused of raping men, whereas this Ben Sullivan has only raped women and should therefore be allowed to continue to run the Union regardless?

Cynical today, but we are constantly told that accused rapists should be given anonymity because it's such a heinous crime, mud sticks etc etc, and yet, I can name 2 people, one acquitted, one found guilty, for whom being charged with rape has had no real problems afterwards.

[Bluestocking]

When I was at Oxford in the mid-1980s, the Oxford Union was well-known to be a repulsive institution, a forum for the worst sort of public school machismo and bullying. It's no surprise that the current President is an individual subject to allegations of the abuse of privilege, or that he doesn't see any need to step aside while these allegations are investigated. I've signed the letter.

[Thumbwitch]

He is hardly protecting the reputation of the OU if prominent speakers are pulling out of attending because he's still the President, is he.

[MrsMaturin]

I am uncomfortable with an organisation behaving as if somebody IS guilty and accusations are founded when neither has been demonstrated in law and this behaviour is made dependent on the nature of the alleged offence. The Union and it's members should agree on their overall view. Would they expect any officer under investigation - not charged, not convicted, but under investigation to resign or to be suspended for the duration? Whether it's rape or financial issues or drink driving or murder. The policy and the expectation should be the same. In this case the calls for his resignation and the boycott both seem predicated on the seriousness of the crime concerned. I think that has very worrying implications if we are going to say one crime is 'worse' than others. All crime has victims. All victims suffer.

I am also deeply uncomfortable that this situation is being used as a symbol of a wider problem. It may very well be so but nothing is proven. To taint this case with everything else that's wrong about the Union is not being just to the man under investigation.

The remarks lower down about this person's background (parents, schooling) are also totally out of order incidentally.

Justice is mandated for criminals and crime. Justice cannot be pre-empted nor is it subtle. There are hard situations on all hands here but I think the members of the union should seek to be fair to all and I don't think that's happening atm.

[Thumbwitch]

I think it's reasonable for any officer under investigation for criminal activity to be suspended for the duration, yes. They get reinstated when/if proven innocent.

[MrsMaturin]

I think so too. But if that IS the case then it should have happened and if that is NOT the policy then they either agree to mandate it to be so, backdated to the beginning of this year OR they do nothing. What you cannot justly do is hold one officer to account because of the nature of the allegations.

[LoveSardines]

"Would they expect any officer under investigation - not charged, not convicted, but under investigation to resign or to be suspended for the duration? Whether it's rape or financial issues or drink driving or murder. The policy and the expectation should be the same. In this case the calls for his resignation and the boycott both seem predicated on the seriousness of the crime concerned. I think that has very worrying implications if we are going to say one crime is 'worse' than others. All crime has victims. All victims suffer."

I was under the impression that some crimes are most certainly considered to be "worse" than others, and that this is in fact reflected in the sentencing guidelines for people convicted of different crimes.

So things like murder, rape, child torture, are considered to be worse than parking offences, shoplifting, non payment of council tax.

So, um, that whole post read a bit odd to me.

[jojofoam]

Right LRD

I am immediately accusing you of rape.

Therefore I, and a whole lot of other people expect you to stand down from your teaching job at the uni.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Do you think you're funny or something?

And for the record, uh, if I were formally accused of sexual assualt (not rape ... UK law ...), I imagine the university would require me to stand down. I'd certainly feel bloody uncomfortable teaching a class of students while knowing some of them were probably feeling triggered and upset by my presence. Oddly enough, that's why I spend quite a lot of my time working out how to teach students about grim stuff without triggering them.

[Thumbwitch]

Well no, jojo - you'd need to take that to the police and have them start an investigation against LRD for that logic to follow. Off you go then!

[BOFster]

In many professional jobs, employees are suspended on full pay while investigations are held- it's hardly unprecedented. It says nothing good about the Oxford Union that this example of good and ethical practice is being ignored.

[TunipTheUnconquerable]

Jojofoam, there is a police investigation into the rape allegations about the Union president. The police do not begin rape investigations lightly.
To imply this is somehow comparable to you randomly throwing out a totally meaningless and unevidenced accusation against someone you've never met is pretty bloody insulting to women whose rapes are investigated.

[MrsMaturin]

I agree BOF. That should be their practice.

Lovesardines - the sentencing tariff varies on conviction yes. Do you honestly think it's fair though that those investigated for rape should be singled out from those investigated for other crimes whilst the investigation is still ongoing - because that seems the implication here.

[LoveSardines]

Jojo teachers generally do take time out of their jobs while being investigated for sex offences, in schools at least.

I also find your post awfully flippant - and you are implying that people (women and girls) routinely accuse other people (men) of sex offences on whims. I am not sure whether you meant to imply that.

[LoveSardines]

MrsMaturin, yes I do.

If someone is accused of murder, or genocide, or child abuse, or serious sex offences, that is materially different to if they are accused of a parking offence or non payment of council tax.

That's quite obvious to me, and the way it generally works in many roles and occupations.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I can't immediately find a list of recent debate topics at the Oxford Union.

But it is typical for these topics to be controversial, sometimes potentially offensive.

How could you debate things like that in this context?

[Liara]

When I was at Oxford in the mid-1980s, the Oxford Union was well-known to be a repulsive institution, a forum for the worst sort of public school machismo and bullying. It's no surprise that the current President is an individual subject to allegations of the abuse of privilege, or that he doesn't see any need to step aside while these allegations are investigated.

Ditto when I was there in the early 90s.

[jojofoam]

I am not one to fall on my sword if I am innocent.

[jojofoam]

I would defend my honour, not throw it away.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

What's honourable about it?

It is comments like that, which make rape allegations so difficult for people accused, you realize. The idea that an innocent man needs to fight for his 'reputation' if falsely accused is a rape myth, and a really nasty one.

[TheSkiingGardener]

Signed. Having read the debate on here and elsewhere. I wouldn't support resignation, but it would be sensible to stand aside whilst under investigation for the good of the Union he purports to represent.

[jojofoam]

So if you are innocent, which I presume you are, you just step down? Never more to work at a uni?