She was named
Women discussed as rape targets by a group of male students at the University of Warwick say they are terrified of seeing the men return to campus after the university reduced the length of their suspension.
Last year five men were barred or suspended by the university over their membership of a long-running group chat that discussed rape and sexual assault of women, including individual students, as well as racism, antisemitism and homophobia.
After a decision from the university’s disciplinary proceedings in June, two of the men were banned from the Warwick campus for 10 years. But it has emerged that, after an appeal, the two will be able to return to the campus from September.
Megan is a history and politics student at the University of Warwick. She was named in a Facebook chat where rape threats were made against specific women at the uni.
Two students were originally banned for 10 years over that group chat – but their ban has been reduced after they appealed and they will now be allowed to return later this year.
Warwick University has called their actions abhorrent and unacceptable, but Megan’s told Radio 1 Newsbeat she feels too anxious to be at the uni this week.
It’s not clear what the BBC means by that “but” – the fact that the actions are abhorrent and unacceptable is surely why Megan feels too anxious to be at the uni this week. The actions are abhorrent and unacceptable, and naturally Megan feels too anxious to be at the uni this week.
The trauma of being named in the Facebook group has already had an impact on Megan’s studies when it was first revealed in 2018.
“It really affected my university experience last year,” she says.
“I didn’t go to a lot of lectures or seminars in my final time at university which really affected my degree because that was exam season.”
Warwick University gave this statement to Newsbeat: “The behaviour shown by the individuals concerned goes against all of our values as a community. We are sorry that the decision as a result of our processes has upset so many members of our own community and beyond.” But it adds that the appeal was over the length of the ban, not the severity of the offence.
But the ban should be at least long enough to keep the rape-talkers away until the students they threatened with rape have finished their time at Warwick. What about that aspect?
Megan feels that Warwick’s History department has been supportive, but overall feels like she’s been let down by her university.
“I feel that the university overall has failed,” she says.
“I don’t think anyone higher up in the institution has got back to us. I think it’s appalling, I think they haven’t really looked after girls at the university and the people mentioned in particular.”
Katie Tarrant agrees – she edits the student newspaper The Boar, who originally broke the story.
“It’s very upsetting to see the atmosphere on campus right now,” Katie told Newsbeat. “What upsets me is when people say that it’s banter. Regardless of whether you think this information is private so it shouldn’t have been put out, what they have said, a lot of the stuff is abhorrent.”
Sure, threatening women with rape is just bantz, just jokes, just boys will be boys. If the women don’t like it they can leave, right?
How long would their banishment have lasted if they’d been found to have “liked” or retweeted anything that could have been taken as being anti-trans limericks or doggerel, you know, police level thoughtcrime?
I am genuinely surprised that the learned academics of that university did not add ‘and also illegal’. To my knowledge, it is against the law, in the Anglophone world at least, to threaten someone with any sort of violence or violation. That is the ‘assault’ in ‘assault and battery’, as in:
By suspending these young men for this CRIME, the University is clearly satisfied that it has evidence enough to justify the suspension.
On the face of it, therefore, the matter should have been referred to the police. Full bloody stop.
When my sister was in college, she and another woman in her English composition class were threatened with violence by a male student who didn’t like them discussing a work from a woman’s point of view. He felt they were being stupid and all womany and so forth, so he stood up in class and threatened them…his threat suggested the use of a fire arm might be imminent.
He was removed from the class and suspended from the school. Within days, he had hired a lawyer and was reinstated to the school. While he was not returned to that same section, the teacher was required to accept him in another section of the same class…a woman teacher who also felt threatened by his violence. She was told since he had not directly named her in the threat, she had no choice but to take him in her class, because there was no reason for her to be afraid of him.
WTF?
iknklast:
As has been noted before, the law is an ass, meaning donkey; though an American interpretation would fit just as well. Also, google up ‘lawyers as prostitutes’ and see what you get.
“I am ashamed the law is such an ass.”
(George Chapman (1559-1634) Revenge for Honour, 1654, act III, sc. II)
I’m watching the BBC’s News 24 program now and they are covering this quite intensively. Comments from the public are uniformly critical of the university. I don’t think this is going away.
@Omar #2
Were they actually threatened? I may be mixing things up but as far as I understood, these were guys fantasizing about doing all sorts of obnoxious behaviour in a private group. And someone made those conversations public. AFAIU those fantasies were not supposed to be made public. So I don’t think a charge of threatening can be made.
‘…chat that discussed rape and sexual assault of women, including individual students, as well as racism, antisemitism and homophobia.’
Isn’t there a difference between ‘discussing’ and advocating?
Off-topic housekeeping item – Omar, could you please stop putting quoted passages in italics along with the blockquotes? Just blockquote, like everyone else. I’ve asked you before and I’m tired of editing your comments. It’s not significant, obviously, but it’s irritating.
Let me start with the important point: whether or not these assholes engaged in criminal conduct, the university has a moral duty (and, in the U.S. at least, would have a legal duty — not sure about the U.K.) to provide its students and faculty with a safe learning and working environment.
Ophelia is right that, at a minimum, the suspension should have been long enough to ensure that the women discussed were gone from campus before these guys were allowed back on. At a sub-minimum, the university could have permitted them to re-enroll but severely limited their access to campus (i.e. they “attend” classes remotely, and only show up physically for exams or other events that cannot be handled remotely).
Now for some minor legal nitpicking which I am unable to resist, but none of which undermines the point above:
Omar@2 and Axxyaan@6,
Yeah, it appears to me from the linked stories that this was a Facebook group that was not publicly visible.
In terms of criminal charges, that would not seem to meet the U.K. definition of common assault:
for at least two reasons. First, these comments were not being sent to, directed at, or even visible to the targets; these assholes apparently believed that they were just speaking among themselves. So they had no “intent” to cause fear in the victims. Maaaaybe you could stretch and say that it was “reckless” because they had to know that the messages would be exposed and cause fear in the victims, but that really does seem like a stretch — recklessness is a fairly high standard, higher than mere “should have known with reasonable care” standard of negligence. Second, there doesn’t seem to be any threat of “immediate” infliction of force.
That’s not to say that there isn’t any potential criminal liability here; the U.K. may have some more specific laws on threats, especially in the internet context. I’m just responding to the argument about assault. Though I suspect any law about “threats” is going to run into the same problem — although the article refers to “threats,” usually the law requires that a threat actually be directed at the intended victim.
And again, even if there is no criminal liability, that doesn’t preclude the university from taking action.
It’s very tricky, isn’t it. I wrestled with it yesterday. It was in a private Facebook group, and those are supposed to be private. At the same time…young men who “banter” in that way seem like a danger to women. Or do they? Is talking like that just completely normal and universal among males, or young males? How can women know? How can women know what goes on when they’re not present? If it really is universal there’s no point in keeping just a few participants off campus. If it’s not, there is some point to doing that.
I don’t think it’s universal, or even that common.
My college days are now decades in the past, in a less enlightened time, and while I certainly recall some discussions that were crude, I don’t remember anyone ever expressed a wish that a woman be raped. I think that would have stood out to me, and flagged the speaker as someone to watch out for.
OB:
I do not recall having been asked before, but as you wish, OB. As you wish. However, I think that your irritation with me has somewhat deeper roots than that.
Thank you. I have asked before but that doesn’t mean you saw it.
Oh I get irritated by one of your comments now and then, no question! But I don’t think that amounts to deeper roots. Comment-irritation isn’t all that deep.
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED
Hahaha well there are exceptions.