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.

I have not read the whole thread but am absolutely disgusted that this thread even exists, as well as the petition posted by the OP. I was under the impression that feminists want equality.... This is clearly an attack on a man who has not been proven guilty. I am speechless.

larry, no, my posts are not doing that.

You need to read them.

I have said repeatedly on this thread that this man's guilt or innocence is not relevant. He was not charged. It is not our business what happened there.

What does matter (as, again, I have said repeatedly, if you bothered to read) is his attitude in all of this.

He could have stepped aside, knowing that the situation was not good for the Union (especially since he tried to use their money to pay his legal fees!). He could have respected the feelings of rape survivors - which is something that many men and women manage to do every day.

He did not. He decided his hobby was more important. This demonstrates that he is a rather selfish person at best.

He's very young, and god knows, he's hardly the only person to act like this. And I'm sure it was fairly horrible for him too. But I do hold out hope of men doing the decent thing. I believe the vast majority of men are capable of that. I'm not sure why anyone else doesn't, to be honest.

miss - sorry, but I think this is one of those cases where you need to read the thread. I think it is clearer when you read it.

It's not about his guilt or innocence. In fact, he's not even been charged, so it never got that far. What people were bothered by was him not wanting to stand aside while the decision whether or not to bring charges was being made. That's got nothing to do with anyone presuming to judge guilt or innocence. It's a separate issue.

Oh, and larry, no, that was not a personal attack.

I'm afraid if you post rape myths, you can expect to be called on them, and my recollection is that this has happened before. I may be incorrect, but it feels awfully familiar.

the good that comes out of these men being in the public eye is that they may not be guilty or any crime...

...but they generally come over as complete w*kers and at least women have the information so can steer clear of them in the future.

Fair enough, I haven't read it. I'm just shocked by the op's petition.... Why should he have to step down? He hasn't done anything wrong ( or hasn't been proven)...

But I'll kindly FO and leave you all to hate men! :)

He was on this morning a few mins ago.

He wants anonymity now.

His lawyer was spouting figures of 11% of rape allegations are false- rubbish! It's more like 5% ie the same as other crimes.

If his lawyer is lying about that...

"Feminists hate men" - bingo!

Buffy's post of 11.37 is spot on. Though apparently beyond the grasp of some.

Oh, yes. We all hate men. Gotcha.

You'll be surprised to note that there were plenty of men who thought he should step down, too. Members of his own Union were not very happy with him.

Is it so hard to imagine how things could have worked?

He might have said to the president-elect: 'This is awful. I've just heard someone has gone to the police and accused me of rape. I feel sick - I didn't do it, but you'd best take over while I sort this out.' They could have put out a statement to the effect that he was innocent and trusted that he would not be charged, and wanted everyone in the Union and beyond to know that, given the upsetting nature of the situation for himself and for others, he felt the Union would be better served by the president-elect taking his place.

If he'd done that, it would have sent a clear message that he could separate, in his mind, his knowledge of his own innocence and his awareness that rape is an upsetting thought to many.

I'm a little fuzzy on all this. Should he have been made to step down? My gut says no, because it does feel that the result is that someone should be punished for an accusation, and again my feelings are that isn't right.

Should he have chosen to step down? Unreservedly yes, I was reading about this and one comment was he should have stepped down for the organisation he leads benefit. If he leads the organisation that should be at the forefront of his mind. Everything LRD has said stacks as good enough reason on its own.

If anyone disagrees with anything above please don't take offence as they are just opinion. I'm not conversant enough with all the dimensions of this debate to offer more than that tentative opinion. However I do think that there is opportunity to salvage something positive from this sorry state of affairs by examining it properly.

Larry nobody is saying we should shift the burden of proof. It's easy to plant your flag on that concept stick your finger in your ears and ignore everything else. However if we do that we ignore one mountain of victims for the sake of a small hill of others. Obviously the goal here is to protect everybody, but you can't hide a mountain with a hill and we have to change things as the status quo is untenable as it stands.

I do not think he should have been made to step down, no. And he wasn't.

I do think he should have offered. There is a big difference there. Being made to step down feels, as you say, like punishment, and sends a wrong signal.

just - YY, you are right. I had been thinking of him putting the statement out, in which case it would have been entirely fair for him to state his innocence. But yes, of course, it'd have been the Union. They could certainly have said something about waiting for the police to finish.

He could also have put out the statement about innocence as a private person.

I doubt, if that had all happened, that it would have attracted so much media attention, however.

Why should someone ever step aside if they are innocent? It's a ridiculous idea particularly as he wasn't charged.
I hope all feminists stand up for innocent until proven guilty whatever your gender.
That could have been your son or husband wrongly accused.

Jane, this has been covered upthread.

There are many posts explaining in very simple terms why this is not about guilt or innocence. If you let us know what you don't understand, we'll explain, but there's little point repeating the same points if you won't read them or acknowledge them?

If my husband, or others of the men in my life had been accused, I hope and trust they'd have stepped aside - as many men who commented on this story say that they would have done.

This is not something most men cannot understand, you know.

Dervel,

I do think there is a degree of disingenuity about stating that no one wants to alter the burden of truth hurdle but 'the culture must change'. If we change the culture to believe an accusation, the corollary is that we believe that the accused is a rapist unless he can prove otherwise. There is no half way house.

And, if you then try to say that we should have a legal standard of proof entirely separate to the cultural presumption, I don't think that will work either. Law follows culture, not vice versa (or at least on the whole).

With rape, the perpetrator's identity is rarely the issue. Most cases turn in whether the crime took place. You could, on that basis, argue that a different presumption was uniquely appropriate. Personally, I wouldn't but I can see a case for it. What I struggle with is someone arguing for a different presumption culturally but the same presumption in law.

What I struggle with is the truly pitiful record of successful convictions. Keir Starmer agreed that the culture should change, and he's an expert in this area.

The culture must change to a presumption that we do not know whether or not someone is innocent or guilty.

At the moment, the presumption is that the woman is lying. It is appalling, but it is the case. Your posts comparing rape cases to witch hunts make this quite clear, I feel. As do the many outpourings of pity for men whose 'lives are ruined by false allegations', which function as survivor-shaming.

What if a person accuses a person at work and tells the boss, but that person does not end up going to the police, should the employee still stand aside?