

The Trouble with Teaching Rape Law (2014) - Tomte
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rape-law

======
ZeroGravitas
All seems reasonable enough, except for showing a documentary about child-
abuse in class without even having the basic human courtesy to warn people of
the contents.

If people can't wrap their heads around why that might be an unpleasant
experience for certain people, then I find it hard to take their other
opinions seriously.

You'd think, if the topic was at all important to them, which they repeatedly
claim it is, that this utterly minor concession to logic and reasonableness
might not be worth taking a stand against, yet apparently their right to
spring upsetting material onto students without warning trumps their desire
for well-educated lawyers.

How can there possibly be a political divide over this? I don't get it. My
best guess is something like climate change, where people have to ignore
reality because they don't like the policy responses that it points to.

~~~
teamhappy
> except for showing a documentary about child-abuse in class without even
> having the basic human courtesy to warn people of the contents.

I didn't get the impression that the author disagrees with that. I guess just
mentioning the fact that it's a documentary about child rape would do the job
(rather than just hitting play, which I'm pretty sure they don't do).

As far as I'm concerned the article could have been written without mentioning
that particular example.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I got a completely different message from that paragraph than you did. I just
went back and read it again, and it seems even harsher and more callous the
second time around.

The author clearly disagrees that advanced warning of potentially sensitive
topics is warranted, which is a strange stance to take if the plan all along
was to give advance notice when the topic was incest/rape/child abuse.

~~~
teamhappy
That interesting. I've read it a second time as well and I still don't get it.
(Just to be clear: We're talking about the paragraph starting with "Something
similar to the 'second rape' concept," right?)

> The author clearly disagrees that advanced warning of potentially sensitive
> topics is warranted [...]

Are we talking about the documentary or any class on rape law in general? I
think he would disagree with warning his students any time they talk about
violent crimes (presumably that comes up a lot), but not disagree with warning
them when he shows a documentary that contains very graphic descriptions of
such crimes.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
The key bit for me was the fact that students asked (after they'd seen the
video) that they be given warnings about that kind of content. Which seems to
imply that no warning was given. The rest of the paragraph seems to be the
professor making the argument that giving such a warning would offend their
principles in some way and that they have no intention of providing this
courtesy in the future either.

------
stupidcar
Ironic that the pseudo-psychology of 'triggering' is being used to coerce
those who experienced trauma into a state of perpetual victimhood. Rather than
dealing with their experiences via safe discussion and exposure and eventually
moving beyond them, they are urged to see themselves as irreparably damaged
and fragile; to alter and censure their own identity, behaviour and the
behaviour of others.

~~~
chrismcb
In addition it is failing to give today's students the tools they need to
handle tomorrow's victims

------
dylanjermiah
Disgusting, PC nonsense getting in the way of education on an important
subject.

------
smegel
> Trials often included inquiries into a woman’s sexual history, because of
> the notion that a woman who wasn’t virginal must have been complicit in any
> sex that occurred.

I thought it was to counteract arguments that an apparently virginal woman
would not engage in such sordid behavior, therefore making it apparent it must
have been rape - when she had in fact engaged in such acts and they would not
have been out of character in the least.

There is this claim that sexual history will hopelessly bias the jury,
therefore should be banned - but they seem quite happy for other biases - such
that women don't aggressively engage in casual sex or that young girls have no
concept of sexuality - to stand and influence the outcome.

------
emiliobumachar
The page just does not scroll on my phoone's Chrome browser.

Waited for the page to fully load, swiped my finger. Nothing.

