|
Post by strummer8526 on Oct 1, 2007 16:23:48 GMT -5
Yeah, my issues include:
The crime itself was terrible. But people should be angry about it for WHATEVER reason it happened. If the kid was a Red Sox fan and they got into a sports fight, is it any LESS offensive because of what the attack was specifically based on? It's possible that the University was asked NOT to report too much on it while the investigation was going on. And I can't stand how infrequent University reports on campus crime are, but again, that applies to the assault of a straight kid, gay kid, or anyone else. Let's all protest for more openness about campus crimes. Why is it just more openness for crimes committed against a homosexual? Finally, the University does PLENTY to address these issues. 18-year olds don't need greater "education" and "dialogue." Either a person is accepting and tolerant and mature, or he's not. It's insulting to the rest of us to ram these initiatives down everyone's throats because of the lunacy of a few people. I'm sure that the person who did this, drunk on a Friday night, would think "Well ordinarily, I don't like gay guys, but that 2 hr long NSO program really changed my view, and I'm ok with it now."
It's just getting out of hand. There's a point at which being different just stops making you entitled to programs and the like. The kid who did this should get the book thrown at him because it was wrong. It would have been wrong if he did it to me, a straight girl, a lesbian, or anyone else. Stop blaming the University.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Oct 1, 2007 16:24:29 GMT -5
The protest seems like an attempt to hijack an alleged incident for larger issues.
Duke did the same thing when racial issues were linked to the lacrosse case. It seemed more legitimate there because the alleged crime involved an athletic team. The GU connection here appears much more tenuous.
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Oct 1, 2007 16:35:11 GMT -5
Yeah, my issues include: The crime itself was terrible. But people should be angry about it for WHATEVER reason it happened. If the kid was a Red Sox fan and they got into a sports fight, is it any LESS offensive because of what the attack was specifically based on? It's possible that the University was asked NOT to report too much on it while the investigation was going on. And I can't stand how infrequent University reports on campus crime are, but again, that applies to the assault of a straight kid, gay kid, or anyone else. Let's all protest for more openness about campus crimes. Why is it just more openness for crimes committed against a homosexual? Finally, the University does PLENTY to address these issues. 18-year olds don't need greater "education" and "dialogue." Either a person is accepting and tolerant and mature, or he's not. It's insulting to the rest of us to ram these initiatives down everyone's throats because of the lunacy of a few people. I'm sure that the person who did this, drunk on a Friday night, would think "Well ordinarily, I don't like gay guys, but that 2 hr long NSO program really changed my view, and I'm ok with it now." It's just getting out of hand. There's a point at which being different just stops making you entitled to programs and the like. The kid who did this should get the book thrown at him because it was wrong. It would have been wrong if he did it to me, a straight girl, a lesbian, or anyone else. Stop blaming the University. I don't think anyone is blaming the university for what happened (or at least I hope no one is). However, when we receive an email 1 day after a break in on campus where no physical harm is done, but it takes 3 weeks to hear of a beating where the prime suspect is a student, it starts to seem a little fishy. Same thing this summer. There was a scandal of potential statatory rape on campus with a gtown student and a minor who was in the high school program. No broadcast email about it despite about 20 cops coming to campus. Gtown doesn't inform the parents of the high school students, who might have a legitimate reason to remove their kid from the program. Why? Who knows. In this case I think a lot had to do with the fact that we are not overly accepting of the gay community on campus, in addition to the fact that this kids' dad is a very important person who most likely donates a ton of money. I agree I would want to hear about any assault charges on campus regardless of who the attacker is and who the victim is. However, with regards to awareness, it is important to stress diversity on campus and to include all facets of our community in this process. I think it is completely fair to mandate a diversity training because being on campus you here anti-gay/whatever comments all the time. Just like it probably was like to live down in the south during the 60's where I think a diversity class or two would have done some good. Talking about these issues can only help, and Strummer, I disagree that people cannot change. In fact I fear the point where people will not be able to change. "To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often."-Winston Churchill
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Oct 1, 2007 16:46:37 GMT -5
Yeah, my issues include: The crime itself was terrible. But people should be angry about it for WHATEVER reason it happened. If the kid was a Red Sox fan and they got into a sports fight, is it any LESS offensive because of what the attack was specifically based on? It's possible that the University was asked NOT to report too much on it while the investigation was going on. And I can't stand how infrequent University reports on campus crime are, but again, that applies to the assault of a straight kid, gay kid, or anyone else. Let's all protest for more openness about campus crimes. Why is it just more openness for crimes committed against a homosexual? Finally, the University does PLENTY to address these issues. 18-year olds don't need greater "education" and "dialogue." Either a person is accepting and tolerant and mature, or he's not. It's insulting to the rest of us to ram these initiatives down everyone's throats because of the lunacy of a few people. I'm sure that the person who did this, drunk on a Friday night, would think "Well ordinarily, I don't like gay guys, but that 2 hr long NSO program really changed my view, and I'm ok with it now." It's just getting out of hand. There's a point at which being different just stops making you entitled to programs and the like. The kid who did this should get the book thrown at him because it was wrong. It would have been wrong if he did it to me, a straight girl, a lesbian, or anyone else. Stop blaming the University. I don't think anyone is blaming the university for what happened (or at least I hope no one is). However, when we receive an email 1 day after a break in on campus where no physical harm is done, but it takes 3 weeks to hear of a beating where the prime suspect is a student, it starts to seem a little fishy. Same thing this summer. There was a scandal of potential statatory rape on campus with a gtown student and a minor who was in the high school program. No broadcast email about it despite about 20 cops coming to campus. Gtown doesn't inform the parents of the high school students, who might have a legitimate reason to remove their kid from the program. Why? Who knows. In this case I think a lot had to do with the fact that we are not overly accepting of the gay community on campus, in addition to the fact that this kids' dad is a very important person who most likely donates a ton of money. I agree I would want to hear about any assault charges on campus regardless of who the attacker is and who the victim is. However, with regards to awareness, it is important to stress diversity on campus and to include all facets of our community in this process. I think it is completely fair to mandate a diversity training because being on campus you here anti-gay/whatever comments all the time. Just like it probably was like to live down in the south during the 60's where I think a diversity class or two would have done some good. Talking about these issues can only help, and Strummer, I disagree that people cannot change. In fact I fear the point where people will not be able to change. "To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often."-Winston Churchill While you suggest that the school might have an anti-gay bias or a willing to sheild the children of donors, and I'm not rulling out that these are false, look at the two examples you gave: this hate crime allegation and the rape issue over the summer. I have heard that in both cases the issue had to do with keeping the identity of the victims anonymous, with the incident over the summer mandatory because it is an incident of rape and involving a minor, and in the hate crime case because the victim has requested to remain anonymous. The fact that they are ongoing investigations by MPD and not the school makes a large difference where to comment on it prematurely would open potentially the university to litigatious issues latter on, especially if the purpotraters are not considered to be an immediate threat that a stranger breaking into a townhouse would be.
|
|
|
Post by saxacalhoya on Oct 1, 2007 16:58:06 GMT -5
As folks have pointed out there are a variety of reasons (e.g., MPD requests, FERPA, Jeanne Clery Act, University policies, etc.) that contribute to what is and what is not communicated by the University. Here is a bit more about the Public Safety Alerts (which go out via broadcast email and are now available online and via a RSS feed): publicsafety.georgetown.edu/incidentreporting/The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, commonly referred to as the Clery Act, requires higher education institutions to collect, report and disseminate crime data to the campus community and U.S. Department of Education; to provide timely warnings of reported crimes that represent a threat to the safety of students or employees; and to make public their campus security policies. In compliance with this legislation, Georgetown University’s Department of Public Safety (DPS) disseminates public safety alerts to faculty, staff and students, produces an annual crime report, and maintains a log of reported criminal incidents. publicsafety.georgetown.edu/incidentreporting/12870.html-- Public Safety Alerts The Department of Public Safety electronically alerts members of the campus community to reported incidents of crime on or near campus when there could be a threat to the safety of students, faculty or staff and to enlist their help in apprehending alleged suspects involved. publicsafety.georgetown.edu/alerts/psas/
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 1, 2007 16:58:48 GMT -5
amen. and I'm sorry strummer, but even if it's true that people should be angry whenever a student attacks another student, regardless of the reason, there is still a substantial difference between an attack that may have been a hate crime and a fight over sports rivalry. to compare the two is despicable. Why is it despicable? Why is one irrational, unprovoked attack any different than another? Shouldn't they be equally condemned? Or if we're ranking crimes based on the reason for the attack, does an attack with a a racist underpinning rank higher or lower than this one? What about an attack against someone because they're muslim? Or Mormon? Or from Maryland? Please let me know the pecking order so I know who I can beat up, and who I cannot. p.s. I still don't get the use of LGBTG.
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Oct 1, 2007 17:01:51 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is blaming the university for what happened (or at least I hope no one is). However, when we receive an email 1 day after a break in on campus where no physical harm is done, but it takes 3 weeks to hear of a beating where the prime suspect is a student, it starts to seem a little fishy. Same thing this summer. There was a scandal of potential statatory rape on campus with a gtown student and a minor who was in the high school program. No broadcast email about it despite about 20 cops coming to campus. Gtown doesn't inform the parents of the high school students, who might have a legitimate reason to remove their kid from the program. Why? Who knows. In this case I think a lot had to do with the fact that we are not overly accepting of the gay community on campus, in addition to the fact that this kids' dad is a very important person who most likely donates a ton of money. I agree I would want to hear about any assault charges on campus regardless of who the attacker is and who the victim is. However, with regards to awareness, it is important to stress diversity on campus and to include all facets of our community in this process. I think it is completely fair to mandate a diversity training because being on campus you here anti-gay/whatever comments all the time. Just like it probably was like to live down in the south during the 60's where I think a diversity class or two would have done some good. Talking about these issues can only help, and Strummer, I disagree that people cannot change. In fact I fear the point where people will not be able to change. "To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often."-Winston Churchill While you suggest that the school might have an anti-gay bias or a willing to sheild the children of donors, and I'm not rulling out that these are false, look at the two examples you gave: this hate crime allegation and the rape issue over the summer. I have heard that in both cases the issue had to do with keeping the identity of the victims anonymous, with the incident over the summer mandatory because it is an incident of rape and involving a minor, and in the hate crime case because the victim has requested to remain anonymous. The fact that they are ongoing investigations by MPD and not the school makes a large difference where to comment on it prematurely would open potentially the university to litigatious issues latter on, especially if the purpotraters are not considered to be an immediate threat that a stranger breaking into a townhouse would be. By announcing that an incident happened, they are in no way releasing the victim's identity. We all know the incident happened now, and we still don't know who the victim is. Also, to assume that someone accused is less likely to be a repeat offender than someone who broke into a townhouse is a pretty big assumption in my opinion. I think more litigious action could be taken against the school if they don't disclose the incident. What happens if Phil the next week had attacked someone else? Now that seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen because the university did not inform the student body of a potential violent threat. An ongoing MPD investigation also has nothing to do with anything. While I'm not comparing the scope of these incidents, what if there is a shooting on campus and the school decides not to tell the students about the attack because the police were still investigating. The pretense of an MPD investigation does not excuse inaction on the part of the University.
|
|
|
Post by saxacalhoya on Oct 1, 2007 17:12:07 GMT -5
An ongoing MPD investigation also has nothing to do with anything. While I'm not comparing the scope of these incidents, what if there is a shooting on campus and the school decides not to tell the students about the attack because the police were still investigating. The pretense of an MPD investigation does not excuse inaction on the part of the University. Actually it does, especially when MPD asks the University not to disclose information regarding an incident ... which has been the case in the past and may be a part of this situation as well. Unfortunately there are complexities -- not all of which will be publicly disclosed -- to what the University can and cannot comment on.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Oct 1, 2007 18:22:53 GMT -5
I have a good mutual friend with the boy who was attacked. The first thing she said when we talked about it was in reference to NOT making it hugely public by his own request. I'm not going to speculate about what he, or MPD, or anyone else wanted. But considering that we don't know the interests involved, I think it's irrational to say that the University was MORE wrong for not publicizing this than they are for not publicizing everything else that happens around campus.
Unless, of course, it's a conscious decision to hide specific types of crimes. I don't want to imagine the University strategically doing that. In my opinion, they're more broadly remiss in failing to send notifications about EVERYTHING.
Three, maybe four years ago, there was a mugging in Burleith--violent, three guys with shotguns robbing two girls and a guy. The University sent nothing. I think they should have. I think that unless there were reasons not to in this case, they should have in this case too.
And I don't get the "despicable" logic at all. If I see you on the street and beat you without provocation because I just don't like the way you look, am I less offensive than the kid who did this? Violence is violence. It's all motivated by something, and when some of those motivations are more illogical and absurd than others, I'd still treat all such cases just as harshly.
|
|
bubbrubbhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
We are the intuitive minds that plot the course. Woo-WOOO!
Posts: 1,369
|
Post by bubbrubbhoya on Oct 2, 2007 8:07:23 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is blaming the university for what happened (or at least I hope no one is). However, when we receive an email 1 day after a break in on campus where no physical harm is done, but it takes 3 weeks to hear of a beating where the prime suspect is a student, it starts to seem a little fishy. Same thing this summer. There was a scandal of potential statatory rape on campus with a gtown student and a minor who was in the high school program. No broadcast email about it despite about 20 cops coming to campus. Gtown doesn't inform the parents of the high school students, who might have a legitimate reason to remove their kid from the program. Why? Who knows. I know why--because a 19 year old's having sex with a 16 year old isn't a public safety issue. amen. and I'm sorry strummer, but even if it's true that people should be angry whenever a student attacks another student, regardless of the reason, there is still a substantial difference between an attack that may have been a hate crime and a fight over sports rivalry. to compare the two is despicable. Afirthionado, strummer backed up his view with an argument. Instead of trying to intellectually bully the board into agreeing with your apparently baseless opinion (I only say this because you provide no support for your own conclusion), the least you could do is show us why his comparison is despicable. Until that happens, you look a whole lot more reactionist than someone who shows us he is willing to think critically about a controversial issue, and the strength of your viewpoint suffers as a result.
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Oct 2, 2007 12:33:39 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is blaming the university for what happened (or at least I hope no one is). However, when we receive an email 1 day after a break in on campus where no physical harm is done, but it takes 3 weeks to hear of a beating where the prime suspect is a student, it starts to seem a little fishy. Same thing this summer. There was a scandal of potential statatory rape on campus with a gtown student and a minor who was in the high school program. No broadcast email about it despite about 20 cops coming to campus. Gtown doesn't inform the parents of the high school students, who might have a legitimate reason to remove their kid from the program. Why? Who knows. I know why--because a 19 year old's having sex with a 16 year old isn't a public safety issue. amen. and I'm sorry strummer, but even if it's true that people should be angry whenever a student attacks another student, regardless of the reason, there is still a substantial difference between an attack that may have been a hate crime and a fight over sports rivalry. to compare the two is despicable. Afirthionado, strummer backed up his view with an argument. Instead of trying to intellectually bully the board into agreeing with your apparently baseless opinion (I only say this because you provide no support for your own conclusion), the least you could do is show us why his comparison is despicable. Until that happens, you look a whole lot more reactionist than someone who shows us he is willing to think critically about a controversial issue, and the strength of your viewpoint suffers as a result. Bubrub, If I have a 16 year old daughter, or sister for that matter who happens to be in the summer program, you bet it is a public safety concern. I'm going to go out and guess you don't have a daughter who is around that age because I can bet that you would view the situation much differently. In fact, they evacuated Henle so by Georgetown/the police's own actions it can be inferred that it was a public safety issue. While in no way am I justifying a beating based on a sports rivalry, I have to agree with Afirthionado. If I was beaten because of something I was (religion/race/sexual orientation etc.) it would have a much greater mental impact upon me. I would feel as if society did not accept me and I would not feel comfortable expressing who I was. There is the potential that the victim would feel like they need to live in hiding and constantly look over their shoulder because of who they are. Who knows, someone who is non-white might never again feel comfortable interacting with someone who is white for the rest of their lives becuase of the constant insecurity that it was "the person" who was attacked as opposed to "the action" that was attacked. If I get in a bar fight because I'm a red sox fan and I mouth off to a yankees fan maybe I just don't do that in the future and watch the game without engaging other fans. But to fear getting beat up because of who you are, something that you have no control over and which is central to your being must be much more troublesome. While the physical acts might be the same, the "hate" attack has a mental an emotional element that I don't believe exists to as great of an extent in the second scenario. And causing this mental distress is a part of our legal system. Buring crosses to intimidate is illegal (at leasst I'm pretty sure the S.C. ruled that way) and financial punishment are much stricter in civil cases when emotional distress has been caused.
|
|
bubbrubbhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
We are the intuitive minds that plot the course. Woo-WOOO!
Posts: 1,369
|
Post by bubbrubbhoya on Oct 2, 2007 12:55:23 GMT -5
Redskins - I appreciate that you make an argument here that advances debate rather than trying to stifle it. I think it's important to recognize that there are two sides of this coin, and both sides can make legitimate points. Arguing like afirthianado did above helps neither side.
I still disagree with you on the statutory rape issue, though, and you're right, I don't have a daughter...though I might say this allows me to argue from a more objective position. I don't see why a high school junior can have sex with an eighth grader (as far as the law is concerned), but it's a horrible crime for a 19 year old to have sex with a 16 year old. I'm certainly not advocating this, but you can't say that this isn't a little ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Oct 2, 2007 15:12:17 GMT -5
I absolutely recognize the mental and emotional element, and I can appreciate that it's worse when the victim can feel as though they've been hurt based on something as inherent as sexuality, race, etc. I also think that when a straight white kid gets beaten for no reason, there can be severe emotional damage--a fear or pain that is equally devastating. I know of victim of Georgetown robbery who was unwilling to leave her rooms for days because of the victimization caused by needless and senseless violence.
Maybe the sports analogy was a bad one because it sounds like I'm talking about a bar brawl kind of situation, which I'm not. I'm referring to crime that occurs based on nothing but the attacker's illogical disregard for the other person, for one reason or another. I think that in many cases, regardless of reason for such an attack, there's mental and emotional harm caused, and so I would treat them with equal harshness. That's not to say reduce penalties and punishments for offenders against homosexuals. It means making them equal because the results may be similar enough. We're not going to put people away for life for simple battery. So if we decide that for a homosexual victim, it's reasonable to give (let's just say) 5-10, then why isn't it reasonable to be equally heavy handed regardless of victim? Also, I understand there's a sort of disincentive objective with harsher penalties. I'd just rather strong enough disincentive for any violence.
I obviously feel for this kid who now will think "Because I'm a homosexual, there are people who hate me and may want to do me harm." I feel just as badly for someone who is left after an attack thinking "I did nothing to provoke that, and I'm not safe in Georgetown because someone may want to do me harm."
And don't worry, I didn't feel bullied. These are very touchy issues that people have strong opinions on for personal reasons, and it's sometimes hard to express nuance via the blunt instrument of message board discussions.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 2, 2007 19:05:51 GMT -5
How in the world can an assailant be positively identified on Facebook? Particularly when the identifier last saw the assailant at night and probably after a cocktail or two?
Anyone on the board can send me a picture of themselves, and I'll find someone else who looks like them on the World Wide Web in an hour or two.
What's more, the victim, not the police, "found" this attacker based on a "hunch" that he was attacked by a GU student. From the CNN article:
"When he found a profile of someone who looked like his attacker, police investigated, then created a photo spread of possible suspects. The victim picked Cooney's photo from the photo spread and Washington police worked with Georgetown University Public Safety officers to arrest him."
Which amounts to: "Hey kid, here are some other pictures. Now point to the picture of the guy you found on the internet."
Unless additional facts come to light, I seriously doubt there will be a conviction in this case (has there even been an indictment yet?). It is sad that the accused student seems to have already been convicted by some of his peers, despite the highly questionable methods used to bring him into custody.
(And BTW for those wondering, LGBTQ=Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Questioning.)
|
|
|
Post by TrueHoyaBlue on Oct 3, 2007 9:09:46 GMT -5
How is that any different (or less conclusive) then the traditional police sketch, followed by police lineup, which has been the standard for decades in identifying suspects. If visual identification was not taken as acceptable, then any crime in which the attacker is not personally known by the victim (or arrested on scene), would be unsolveable.
|
|
HealyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Victory!!!
Posts: 1,059
|
Post by HealyHoya on Oct 3, 2007 9:17:51 GMT -5
i guess i would have flunked out since i dont know what the Q on the end of that alphabet soup stands for. how about a day devoted to sex ed then a day devoted to irish americans, followed by a day for every possible ethnic stripe under the sun. Follow that up with mormon day, then a day for every religion known to man. that would be good. How about a day to explore the various different types of handicaps people have on this earth and on GU campus, that would be interesting and foster a greater understanding amongst the undergrads. when they are finished it will be June but at least we will all be aware of each other and know what all the letters of our various groups represent, sounds great. you want the campus to be a safer place? re-open the pub. yep.
|
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Oct 3, 2007 10:06:30 GMT -5
Sorry, but from the reports I have gotten I would be hardpressed to require the University to take additional actions that they did not take. I can understand the anger at being attacked just because of who you are, the facts that have been made public just do not justify such a conclusion. Who are we to say at this point that Phil wasn't assaulted by someone looking for a sexual hookup?
And in lieu of such facts, I would have to argue that the alleged offender has just as strong a right to the presumption of innocence that our nation's legal system guarantees as those looking for scapegoats to justify some larger point.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 3, 2007 13:25:26 GMT -5
How is that any different (or less conclusive) then the traditional police sketch, followed by police lineup, which has been the standard for decades in identifying suspects. If visual identification was not taken as acceptable, then any crime in which the attacker is not personally known by the victim (or arrested on scene), would be unsolveable. Traditionally, police use the sketch to compile a lineup themselves, based on information regarding a criminal's appearance. In this case, the victim played a key part in compiling the lineup, and factors other than appearance played a part. I don't know whether police used a different photo of the accused attacker, or whether they used the photos the victim found on Facebook. If it's the latter, how is that a good lineup?
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Oct 3, 2007 13:27:57 GMT -5
How is that any different (or less conclusive) then the traditional police sketch, followed by police lineup, which has been the standard for decades in identifying suspects. If visual identification was not taken as acceptable, then any crime in which the attacker is not personally known by the victim (or arrested on scene), would be unsolveable. Traditionally, police use the sketch to compile a lineup themselves, based on information regarding a criminal's appearance. In this case, the victim played a key part in compiling the lineup, and factors other than appearance played a part. I don't know whether police used a different photo of the accused attacker, or whether they used the photos the victim found on Facebook. If it's the latter, how is that a good lineup? From the Hoya article yesterday it seems the university supplied pictures to MPD (i.e. pictures not from facebook) and then MPD assembled a lineup of similar looking students. Then the victim was able to identify Phil again
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Oct 3, 2007 18:35:05 GMT -5
I don't know what would be worse: if the accused kid actually did it, and at least the investigation was carried out accurately. Or he didn't do it (which vindicates a GU student), but we're left with a fairly questionable investigative process.
|
|