English Student Complains That He Cannot Go To Classes After Questioning Rape Awareness Sessions

2E9B03A200000578-3329659-image-m-3_1448229137028The growing intolerance shown on campuses continues this week with a new controversy at Warwick University in Coventry, England where second-year George Lawlor, 19, has been publicly harassed and denounced for questioning rape awareness sessions. While universities have embraced the ill-defined concept of “microaggressions” and pursued speech deemed insulting or harassing against different groups, there appears to be little protection for those who espouse opposing views. The Warwick case raises an interesting example of legitimate and less legitimate responses to controversial views. I happen to disagree with Lawlor on critical points, but I am disturbed by reports of his being effectively prevented from going to class.

Lawlor challenged a student union drive to hold rape awareness sessions by arguing that the majority of people “don’t have to be taught to not be a rapist” – and that men inclined to commit the crime would be unlikely to attend such a workshop. He said that organizers where “pointing out the obvious.” He said that his invitation to attend such a session was “incredibly hurtful.” One can clearly disagree with Lawlor’s position, but he was espousing a good-faith point of view on a matter of great public debate. However, he was immediately denounced and branded a “rapist’ and “misogynist.”

Lawlor who studies politics and sociology says that he has been unable to go to classes due to the harassment and verbal attacks. To be sure, Lawlor’s posted picture saying “This is not what a rapist looks like” was provocative and I can understand the objections to that message. I agree with critics that the picture suggests that there are readily identifiable rapists or “typical” rapes — notions that can raise racist elements.

In my view, a voluntary program is hardly something that should be viewed as “hurtful” and the picture as ill-conceived and counterproductive. However, Lawlor’s article raises what he views as a politically correct program that is unlikely to affect the targeted group of offenders. His article titled Why I don’t need consent lessons was in response to invitations sent for I Heart Consent workshop via Facebook.

As we see increasingly efforts to protect the “voices” of certain groups including the creation of minority only columns in school newspapers, it would seem axiomatic that free speech should be protected regardless of content. There is no problem in my view of people calling out Lawlor on social media and forums in disagreement with his views. I do disagree with the response in calling Lawlor a rapist and a “classist” for raising these questions. There is a growing tendency to attack the speaker rather the point in out debates on campus. Lawlor could hold these views and still be, as he claims, anti-rape and opposed to those who engage in such abuse or assaults.

For the university itself, there is something seriously wrong when a student who espouses controversial views does not feel safe going to class. I do believe that we need to consider the complaints of conservative students who believe that they are no longer able to speak freely on campuses in a growing environment of intolerance. There is a big difference between a passionate debate and a pattern of harassment.

What do you think?

Source: Daily Mail

41 thoughts on “English Student Complains That He Cannot Go To Classes After Questioning Rape Awareness Sessions”

  1. We are headed towards a society where citizens will be required to prove they ARE NOT a danger to others. Call it the anti-IST certification program. You refuse to get “rape awareness” training; rapist. Refuse to take ethnic studies training; racists. Refuse to take women’s studies training; misogynist. And on it goes.

  2. SO, I may get jumped on for this story…

    When I was a freshmen in college in 2004, one of the first days of orientation we had to attend a rape or whatever it was awareness thing in the auditorium. I don’t remember because it was boring and pointless. My roommate whom I’d just met and I attended together, and we were still uncomfortable with that new person stigma. To break the ice and reveal my wonderful situational humor, as we walked out of the lecture I turned to him and said, “It’s not rape if she’s too dead to say no.”

    We were then friends forever.

  3. This “rape awareness” training will be as effective at stopping rapes on campus as a gun safety class will stop shootings on campus. I’m not clear as to what “critical points” Professor Turley disagrees with.Should the young man remain silent, keep his opinions to himself because it stirs up trouble? Does JT believe these seminars are necessary and/or effective at reducing rape on campus?

    What have I missed in this story that would make this young man’s objections unreasonable?

  4. Since a significant number of rapes of school-age students in public schools are committed by female teachers, all women getting an Education degree should have mandatory “don’t rape kids” training.

  5. I am in favor of mandatory anti-rape sessions for women. Instructions on how not to get raped. Lots of practice sessions. No dates until you are certified Rape Proof.

  6. In my view, a voluntary program is hardly something that should be viewed as “hurtful”

    What a strange assertion. Doesn’t the content of the program determine whether it is “hurtful”?

  7. “I agree with rape awareness sessions

    Why?
    Do you think there are men who are unaware of the concept?
    You can’t be serious.
    This is just feminist (white) male-bashing fascism.

  8. The tyranny of “I know what’s good”. Even though I agree with rape awareness sessions, I don’t not believe that anyone should be harassed or punished for objecting to them or disagreeing with their existence or their content. I am for free speech in every country.

  9. “…the university teacher Dr Turley spoke up about the appallingly high incidence of rape on campus?

    Precisely because there isn’t one.
    SJWs always lie.

    As for the pseudo-mandatory class, this is a typical Maoist ‘struggle session,’ in which you are guilty until admitting your crimes. The point is not that you actually committed any crimes (even better if you haven’t), but you have to publicly profess their ideology by acknowledging your original sin.

    Lenin knew his show trials were not to punish miscreants, but pour encourager les autres.

    Orwell knew the only way to prove you loved Big brother was to get people to admit that two plus two equals five.
    “But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother

    That is their aim.
    They are evil fascists, plain and simple.

  10. Wouldn’t it be really great if instead of railing against good faith attempts to educate young students on the importance of boundaries and consent, the university teacher Dr Turley spoke up about the appallingly high incidence of rape on campus?

    Does he endorse the position of Professor Trachtenberg, that it’s merely a problem of “misbehaving” male students and the solution is to train female students to lay off the booze so that they can punch then on the nose?

    Really the campus rape issue is finally getting some attention and you’re worried that it’s to “politically correct” to address this add a serious problem? Shame on you. And bloody well have a cup of coffee, you need to wake up.

  11. England does not have a Constitution or a First Amendment. It still has a Queeny.

    The kid looks like a dork. England has a dork provision in their statutes which limits the speech of a dork. If you are a dork, you are a dork all the way.

  12. Well, he is a exactly what a rapist looks like, and several billion other faces too. The classes should be mandatory because apparently even “good” parents are forgetting to teach their sons not to rape women.
    But he should not be harassed for his speech. Let him talk. Let them all talk. Hoist yourself young man, let everyone see your little petard.

  13. Please do not kick me off the blog for being Un Civil. But, again: Black Labs Matter!
    The so called civility rules on the blog are a bit much.

  14. I was criticized in the dogpac here at the marina for espousing the simple statement that BLM. You must understand that other dogs who are not black labradors do not agree with the BLM thing because it seems to be saying that other labradors’ lives do not matter. But I will repeat this one time on this blog: Black Labs Matter! BLM.

  15. I think all should join my new, Church of Orwell. Euphemisms, conventional wisdom and PC are cardinal sins. But, you can smoke, drink, gamble, and screw w/ impunity. But, no rape or “rapey rape.” [Whoopi Goldberg].

Comments are closed.