How on Earth is one to establish that there is “subconscious” coersion, the only form which could feasibly be applied to this incident, given the facts? If legal definitions are not the salient issue (and it’s the age issue I’m concerned with here far more than the gender issue…the treatment of the other boy also disturbs me), then by what other justifiable standard do the Milton administrators dilineate who is or is not expelled, especially in the summary fashion in which they have done so in this case?
Careful with your reading. I think the more you look at what the school’s done the more you’ll see just how thoughtful and careful they’re being. They haven’t decided on the girl’s punishment. I think it’s pretty clear that judgement is being withheld on her until the criminal investigation is over. In other words they’re clear that the boys crossed the bounds, but they’re not clear on whether the girl was culpable or a victim at this point. So there’s nothing summary here.
Secondly what they said was not “subconscious coercion” but pressure - whether conscious or unconscious. They only threw “unconscious” in to indicate that it didn’t matter whether the boys had intent to pressure. What matters is that getting in a group and asking a younger student to perform oral sex on you is unacceptable behavior because it puts pressure on the requestee to peform a sexual act.
Also schools (like parents) absolutely have the right (and duty) to judge moral and ethical behavior whether that behavior is legal or not. They have the right to set the bar as to what they find acceptable, what they find intolerable and what falls somewhere in between. And they also have the right to be subjective in their evaluations. They’re not lawyers.
I’m not clear on what about the treatment of the boy that disturbs you. He’s in the same situation as the girl.
Because it’s not at all clear to me that he is any more or less culpable than his cohorts. The age differential is so small that I cannot see any practical delineator between his actions and the actions of the others beyond the legal definitions, which are quite moot, in my mind, if nobody has been or will be charged with an actual crime.
Seems like the best way to determine whether the girl felt pressured is not to count the number of people in the room with her, but to ask her.
Why do you assume no one did? Because the school didn’t publicize what the girl told them? They didn’t publicize what the boys said either. In fact, the only information the school gave was the bare facts of the incident and the school’s conclusion. You are assuming that the school made its conclusion based on nothing more than the fact that there were five boys and one girl. It didn’t take a three day investigation to find that out. I’m certain they knew that much the first day.
I don’t think the age issue is sufficient reason to treat the 15 year old boy differently. However, this quote regarding the originally reported incident:
makes me wonder if there was some question of the 15 year old boy feeling somewhat pressured into participating by the older students as well. It’s not clear to me that he’s less culpable than the others- but the school also has information that I don’t have.
Yes, frankly. Because they spouted this “five on one = coercion” nonsense instead of just saying “the student reported being coerced”.
Actually, I don’t think they didn’t ask her. I think they probably asked her, she said no, and they started looking for another way to claim she really was coerced.
Five on one doesn’t EQUAL coercion, but it certainly indicats a VERY STRONG PROBABILITY of coercion.Especially with the majority of the guys being older than the girl. The circumstances under which this situation would NOT be coercive are quite narrow. I’d have to know more to make a definitive judgement, but I’m comfortable with what the school has done so far.
Not only the numerical difference, the gender issue, and the age difference itself, but the fact that two of the boys were in an older grade, and that all of the boys were varsity hockey players.
Anyone who doesn’t believe that all these factors combine to strongly suggest at least some coercion is completely ignorant of the dynamics of high school peer groups and hierarchies.
It seems like, with these rather ill-defined conceptions of “coersion”, all teen sex could be a product of peer-pressure, and coercive by nature. You posit overbearing societal pressure, and demand it be acknowledged, whilst requiring no further factual input. Do we not need some sort of tangible definition of coersion beyond suggestions of subliminal mind-control before we can take punitive action for acts that are, ostensibly at least, consensual beyond the arbitrary legal definition of consent? None of you deny the girl fulfilled a verbal request, but you then insist that this could only have taken place under what must be construed as criminally coercive pressure. With only the bare facts at hand, I cannot prove or refute this, and neither can you all, so far as I can see. Given the potentially life-long repurcussions of expulsion from a prestigious academy, don’t such punitive measures warrant something more concrete?
I’m not sure if this is a relevent comparison or not, but I’m reminded of Patty Hearst’s defense. If ever there was a poster-child for the effects of brainwashing, perhaps she’s it. She still did time, as I think was appropriate. If you can’t do better to define “coersion” practically anybody at any time could claim “my peers made me do it; I was temporarily insane.” I’m very uncomfortable with the idea of “implicit coersion” being actionable.
No, actually they don’t. You see, parents send their kids to private schools simply because they are exclusive to some extent. They don’t accept every kid who walks through the door as a public school must, nor do they accept every family. They can expel students for sexual activity on the school grounds just as they can expel them for failing to do their homework. They can expel students for events that happened outside of school, they can expel students because their parents cause problems. The school is not obligated to prove any such infractions (unless it has obligated itself in a contract), and in fact, they are perfectly free to expel students simply because they don’t want them there anymore. It appears that in this case the school has either a) determinined that the girl was coerced and was therefore not responsible and doesn’t deserve expulsion or b)hasn’t yet determined the girls responsibilty. No one has insisted the girl *couldn’t *have consented without being coerced, only that the circumstances as described call any apparent consent into question - and according to the school’s position, should have in the boys’ minds as well. There’s only one position can can be refuted- the position that the school must have been wrong to expel the boys and not the girl. You cannot know that , based on the information given. You give more than the benefit of the doubt to the boys, who haven’t publicly stated even that the girl consented, much less that there was no intent to coerce, but don’t acknowledge the possibilty that the school could have pertinent , non-publicized information which would justify their decision.
And it’s not amatter of “implicit coercion” being actionable. No one is saying these boys should be jailed or sued. The school is essentially saying " We don’t want people who behave in this way to be a part of our community. They are old enough to know that they are supposed to treat people as human beings and not objects, and to understand a person could respond differently to a request/demand from five than he or she would to a request/demand from one, whether that request is for a sexual act or for lunch money". Which brings up another question in my mind- would we be having this conversation if it had been money or jewelry that the boys had asked for and received rather than sex? Or would you be more willing to assme the school was justified in that case?
Remembering my old high school days, I can think of at least one girl who had sex (intercourse, not just fellatio) with multiple men at the same time (insomuch as this is possible). I can think of another girl who ended up dating someone she hated as a result of peer pressure (as far as I know, no sex was involved.) This situation might be coercive, and it might not. A simple statement along the lines of “she said she thought she was being coerced” would do wonders for the school.
I would, because it’s unusual for teenagers to willingly give each other money and jewelry. There are no generosity hormones surging through their bodies, no thrill of being in control of an older, tougher peer as you hand him a few bills. OTOH, as any daytime TV exposé can attest, it’s not unusual for teenagers to willingly give blowjobs.
Why? I think your error is in thinking the decision was primarily punitive. But I doubt punishment was their primary objective. This was about protection of the veyr rarified environment you find at prestigious prep schools. Just think about this board - it bans obnoxious posters to protect itself, not to punish. If it tolerated a lot of bullshit (and sometimes that bullshit seems relatively harmless to outsiders, not to mention the posters themselves) the place would quickly deteriorate.
The same goes for the school. It takes enormous effort to maintain a respectful, mature environment with high caliber students who adhere to high standards of ethical behavior. They’d rapidly find themselves in trouble if they decided only incontrovertible felonious rape was grounds for expulsion. What we know they did do is participate in the degradation of a younger student. That for me would be enough. That they asked for it as well just adds to it. The school also feels that this constituted undue pressure and I think that’s a reasonable assumption but isn’t even necessary for them to make the decision they did.
Not everyone is prudish enough to think oral sex is degrading.
Are you calling me a prude because I think that this situation was degrading to the girl?
Because you claim to know for sure that it was. The only thing we know for sure is that the girl went down on a few older boys, and if you think that’s degrading in itself, then yes, I think you are a prude.
And not everyone is simplistic enough to think that the act can be conveniently isolated from its social and political context.