Responses to Wendy Murphy

From Cyberlaw

• I heard Arthur Miller is going to add an S&M day to his civ pro class.
• wendy murphy makes me furious
  • I think that may be her goal...
  • I think we can all agree that ". . . it is still not probative to bring in irrelevant information about the victim."
• I wonder if Murphy would be opposed to 'course of dealing' evidence in contracts disputes?
• I was embarassed by the conduct of some of my classmates today. Snickering and expressions of disgust are never an appropriate response to a guest speaker's remarks. The content of those remarks, or one's position in relation to them, does not excuse this.
  • I disagree. I find Wendy Murphy's remarks frankly offensive, or at least ill thought out, radical and biased views. She does not even allow for an intellectual debate because she refuses to respond to counterarguments and instead just continues to parrot the same emotionally charged catch phrases. E.g. her claim that allowing in prior sexual history between the accuser and the accused is akin to saying spousal rape is OK; whether or not you agree that the evidence is more probative than prejudicial, it is absurd to say that either option views spousal rape as OK. I considered walking out, but as sitting through her harangue is required for class, an expression of disgust was the most appropriate response that I could think of.
    • • Regarding the above understanding/characterization of Ms. Murphy's comment on spousal rape. Her argument is that the automatic "exception" in Rule 412b that allows this "evidence" was a response to states beginning to stop prohibiting the charge of rape between spouses, which is evident from examining legislative history. Therefore, in a practical sense, 412b *guarantees* admission of the past sexual history in marital rape cases, regardless of how much it will prejudice the jury.
    • To respond to the above comment: I wonder if you would use the words "ill thought out," "biased," "parrot," "emotionally charged," "absurd," and "harangue" to refer to a presentation by a male speaker in class who has a career with such a distinguished record of successful legal reforms, even if you sharply disagreed with him? I think this is a particularly relevant question given that we are concerned about bias of the factfinder. Also, I wonder if your comments are highly emotionally charged?
      • Hear, hear. I think whenever the debate gets heated, it indicates bias. Some people might call the above an ad hominem attack, but I think to ignore the possibility that the tone (as opposed to the content) of some responses to Wendy may be motivated by bias is to pretend there's no elephant in the living room. (I am similarly receptive to the argument that Wendy's tone, and her refusal to entertain counter-arguments, indicate bias.) Would anyone here sincerely argue that misogyny in our society has been eradicated? Anyway, I didn't like the snickering, either. I've also noticed that those writers who are most vehement in their rejection of Wendy's views tend to mischaracterize them. Could we please have some reasoned and thoughtful discussion of the actual issues, people? For my part, I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on this, but we need to bring it down a notch from just ranting.
      • I'm not going to get involved in an attempt to make the debate personal; I think the views she expressed are wrong and offensive. It has nothing to do with her being female, or the topic involving gender. I realize she has a long and, according to some views, distinguished career. I think it is more productive to respond to her arguments than to imply anyone who questions them is a misogynist. And it is obviously not only men who are offended by her; I think her arguments are offensive to women as well, by implying that they are so weak and incapable of verbalizing their intentions that their outward manifestations of consent should be irrelevant as long as they actually didn't intend to consent. Her implication that everyone in the class is 'conservative' (i.e. 'you all must watch the O’Reilly Factor') is just wrong. In my view, if anyone here is conservative, it is her. She is the one denouncing the ACLU (see article here O'Reilly guest falsely accuses ACLU
        ), demanding more stringent treatment of accused defendants, rolling back protections on the accused, and minimizing the responsibility (and in turn soceital regard for) women by indicating that they cannot be required to act such that their intentions would be clear to a reasonable person.
      • If a professor ever brought in a male speaker who expressed the corresponding radical argument on the other side, students of both genders (myself included) would be so offended that the school would probably start a formal inquiry into the incident.
        • I'm not sure this is true. First of all, what would be the corresponding argument? Very very strong protections for defendants accused of rape? I can't imagine that would be subject to an inquiry. Secondly, Harvard is no bastion of gender enlightenment or even rote political correctness. Don't forget that in 2003, the university was investigated by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights for implementing a rule (subsequently revised) requiring sexual assault victims on campus to produce "sufficient independent corroboration" as a prerequisite to a full investigation and adjudicatory resolution of their claims -- a requirement that was abandoned in criminal prosecutions some time ago. As for classes at HLS, I've heard stories about comments about rape law by male professors that make my hair curl. This is hearsay, of course, but it tends to undermine the assertion (for which no actual evidence has yet been advanced) that Harvard has no tolerance for uncharitable views of rape victims.
  • Murphy's worst offense, in my view, was her imperious dismissal of virtually every counterargument posed. Rather than engaging some very insightful questions - or in some cases even allowing the questions to be asked - she raised her voice to repeat her own position. As for the appropriateness of the class' reaction, I'm not at all sure why smirks or expressions of disgust should be taboo when a guest speaker, many of whose arguments are obviously and unabashedly specious, effectively shouts down dissent.
    • • She didn't do well with that, I agree. But so what? Contention is the business of lawyers -- we should handle it like grown-ups. Two wrongs don't make a right.
  • I view her worst offense as creating flawed and extreme arguments which she ascribes to the other side, just so that she can easily shoot them down. For instance, rather than respond to one student's question, she spent 10 minutes vehemently arguing that a woman CAN withdraw consent even mid-way through the act. However, no one in the class had ever argued otherwise. She similarly acts as though she has opponentts arguing that spousal rape SHOULDN'T be illegal even though no one (in our class, certainly) expressed that belief. Wendy's question that prompted Fern Nesson to respond that Wendy was making the question too easy is a final instance; Wendy acted as though most people believe the fact that an accused defendant had been convicted of rape three times in the past is not relevant, when no one had actually brought up that argument.

• Did I understand Murphy to say that evidence of previous consensual sex between the accused and the accuser is NEVER relevant to the rape?
  • I took her to say that it should never be introduced as evidence of a propensity for consent. I don't think she addressed the use of such evidence to develop an alternative (defense) theory to explain physical evidence, as provided for by 412(b)(1)(A).

• This is a total disaster. As a rape survivor, I did not feel that I could go to class today, and I am very glad that I didn't, from the looks of it. Professor Nesson, did it occur to you that there are survivors in your class? Wendy Murphy, though I'm sure she does useful things as a victims advocate, is a disaster in this context -- allowing this sensitive subject to become a polarized battle in a law school class is the worst possible outcome. As for the people in the class who can speak with the degree of callousness some of you have shown: I am deeply saddened. It's unbelievable to me that, given the nature of this crime and the lack of knowledge that so many people have about it, there isn't anything in the way of sensitivity training administered to the faculty and to the students here. So those of us who have actually suffered the crime have to sit in class and shake and sweat and feel miserable as everyone else shouts at each other. I was one of 4 survivors in my section, and without the other women to talk to about it during the week we studied rape, I don't know what I would have done. There are a lot of useful things to be said on this subject, and the issue of balancing the rights of the accused against the rights of the victim is an extremely important, nuanced issue that the intelligent people here at HLS should be thinking about and discussing. Unfortunately, the inflamed, disrespectful, callous, and showy way it was done last week and seems to have been done today is counterproductive and deeply miserable for survivors.
  • I agree with you -- this is a really low-level discussion of these issues. Murphy didn't add a single interesting thing to our discussion about the FRE or rape itself that couldn't have been better addressed in the readings. I don't understand why Nesson uses Murphy for this purpose, and I didn't understand why Dershowitz did so last year. She fits in beautifully on shows like O'Reilly, but I came to HLS for more deliberation, introspection, and real discourse. Instead, Murphy just seems to bring out the worst. -ctr
  • I absolutely agree. There are polar views here that would be better served by trying to understand the other side and not bringing in radicals that only reinforce the polarity. I tried to focus her on what we were being taught today in class--what can a defense attorney ask a rape victim on cross examination, even in her "world" and what I got was a response that implied "how dare you?" I'm also a bit sick of the "no evidence of false accusation," "no higher than false accusation in other crimes," etc. AND the false or misidentification being labeled a fear and not a reality...as if it doesn't exist, albeit in a very low percentage of cases. Our own textbook quotes a 5% false accusation rate for "all crimes." What the heck does this mean for rape? Misidentified 1/20 times? Lying 1/20 times? Consent disagreements...are they "false accusations" or what? I want to think women don't lie about this...what a horrible crime and what a ridiculous idea that false accusations for rape are so common...but at the same time, I wanted discourse...I also sorry if I was "rolling my eyes" or commenting...I don't think I was, but I was animated. One, because Wendy IS good at rhetoric and she has apparently absorbed Archibald Cox to some extent: certainly not "understanding the other side" but she is great at using the other viewpoints weaponry against them (fine job arguing "Constitutional Right" re: privacy since the other view is "Constitutional Right" re: confrontation clause and due process). Two, perhaps there are survivors of both types in our class. Maybe someone is a survivor of a false accusation (albeit for a non-sexual crime). Maybe someone had to spend several years dealing with the repercussions and stigma that can still follow from that. That is not to say such problems are worse than being raped. What it says, though, is that everyone has a story and experiences...and we shouldn't prejudge or be closed-minded. Perhaps some of the laughter and snickering is a defense mechanism for tears. I am so sickened that at this institution we feel the need to put more controversy over and over again into a very emotional and devastating subject. Frankly, I would prefer a quiet discussion about the subject from those "in the know" about both sides to some "academic" discussion of a red-hot topic from individuals that have never been there or have made a living thinking they've championed a cause but in reality turning off a large proportion of students to the topic by being so unwilling to have a courteous discussion.
  • I'm a little baffled by this willingness to blame the polarization of the discussion on Wendy Murphy. Yes, some of her views were extreme and potentially inflammatory. Yes, her responses to several student questions were at best inadequate and at worst dismissive and dogmatic. But she's not responsible for anything on this wiki. The fact that the OP, having not attended class, could tell from the content of the postings that the discussion in class was heated says that we have reproduced the polarity here in this forum. Wendy Murphy's not to blame for that, WE are. In fact, the few postings I see that are actually thoughtful and measured have gone without response. The deliberate, nuanced discussion that everyone claims to crave can only be created BY US. If we're so much more thoughtful, introspective, and moderate than she is, why haven't we risen above knee-jerk reactions to her extremism? You want an intelligent, reasoned debate? Have one!
    • Frankly, besides "I was embarassed" [re: classmates] commentary, I find that the discussion here on the Wiki is far more balanced than the class...in any event, this is a discussion under a heading "Wendy Murphy." Our classmates are here to discuss...Wendy Murphy. I'm sure some agree with her, some have no use for her, and some, like me, aren't attempting a "nuanced" conversation here on our Wiki, but are only hoping for such things in class. That's where the polarity comment comes from. I suppose in black and white text it is easy to read emotion into comments, but I suggest you forego that route. Most of this discussion has focused on the subject line, which is Ms. Murphy. Some has been in response to classmates apparently getting upset about people getting upset! If you would like to start a page labeled "deliberate, nuanced discussion" please do so. The rest of us are commenting on Ms. Murphy and whether or not she adds anything to our education because that's the subject matter of this page. Perhaps you and the few others here who are essentially criticizing the pro and con critiques of Ms. Murphy could go to the "Let's criticize students" page. The rest of us are trying to express thoughts on Ms. Murphy.
• Wendy was on O'Reilly tonight, at around 8:15, discussing the issue of the Vermont judge who recently sentenced a child rapist to 60 days in jail. The judge apparently no longer believes in punishment - only rehabilitation. Anyway, Wendy and O'Reilly both went after this guy pretty hard (justifiably so), calling on him to step down. Wendy also called on Vermont parents to rise up in protest, and not to back down until this judge is gone.
• I found the following statements to be incredibly disturbing: “I like forcing victims to go through it, even if it’s harmful.” (because otherwise a bad system is allowed to continue). Child cases: “Put him on the stand, or put a targe on his back.” When Nesson said, “I’m not interested in getting totally trashed here,” Wendy replied, “but it’s good for you.” She then said, when referring to her belief in forcing rape victims to testify, “she has no choice because it’s a citizenship responsibility on her part, just as if she were a witness to murder…. We don’t give people a pass because the victim is uncomfortable.” These statements to me indicate an instrumentalist view of victims of abuse, which conflicts with her view that the law must protect autonomy. Whom are we protecting, and at what cost?
  • Those and the famous, "I'm against the death penalty, but if someone hurt my son, I'd kill them." These sort of comments show a callousness toward not just an opponent, but toward a broad selection of people. Maybe someone should let her know that at Harvard we expect some intellectual conversation and not some glib pantomime of "discussion" that maybe works on O'Reilly or Court TV. Which reminds me: Nancy Grace and Wendy need to get together. One could scowl at any opposite viewpoint, and the other could mock/ignore/talk over them. We could have O'Reilly moderate...since "all of us watch him" per Wendy.
• As a rape survivor, what bothers me is that each time this subject has come up in my classes at HLS, classmates make remarks of the same offensive tone and substance that we witnessed today, and the comments are usually one-sided. I am glad Wendy was here today because she presented a different view vis-a-vis the perspective that always comes up. Consider that about 1/4 women in our class have been raped. It hurts when people make comments that reflect a view demonstrating very directly that the commenter would not believe me if I told him about my very true rape.
  • Which commenter? I have read nothing here, and heard nothing in class, that makes me thing that any classmate thinks all women, a majority of women, a good percentage, etc. lie about rape or wouldn't believe you. If someone says "there are false accusations" I don't think he/she is saying "I wouldn't believe anyone." Maybe I'm missing something.
    • So, if 1/4 of the women are rape victims, how many of us men are rapists?
• Yesterday and the last time Ms. Murphy came to our class, she was an articulate advocate for her point of view. While some of us may agree with her and some of us may not, it is our task to listen to her perspective in an "overall" calm, reasoned, rational way so that we understand the issues better -- both the field of evidence and the substantive crime of rape as well. And when I say "overall," I mean, of course, there is more than enough room for emotional reactions, because our emotions are normal human responses that surface whether we acknowledge them or not. However, just because issues makes us sensitive (because of our past experiences or experiences of our loved ones), WE CANNOT BE DISMISSIVE OF ANOTHER'S POINT OF VIEW. If we do become dismissive of another's point of view, then I think we have missed some of the learnings Professor Nesson works to convey.

With all due respect to the victim or victims of rape -- or of any crime, I do not want my classroom experience dampened by "sensitivities." If you believe some of the rhetoric around this place that we, as Harvard Law School students, are in a special position to be change agents for the law in the years and decades to come. If this is so, it is absolutely critical that we have exposure to as many points of view as possible. So, we should understand crimes -- causes of legal action -- admissibility of evidence -- and any other legal issues -- from all perspectives, including those that are sensitive to the victims of crime and those that are not.

• Your statement shows very little respect for rape victims (and people who have been falsely accused of rape) who are sitting in class feeling miserable because of the insensitive, ignorant views, or the insensitive delivery of various views. You are precisely the type of person who would benefit from sensitivity training. When the very students who have a great deal to add to a discussion (the victims of the crime) feel so horrendously uncomfortable in class (or feel that they can't even attend), then both your and their classroom experiences are being dampened. I am all for full-bodied discussion, tensions, and various points of view. However, I am sure that suffering rape then discussing it (even discussing it in the abstract) is very difficult. If you are fine to silence that voice and create emotional distress in those speakers, then having this discussion be polarized, emotional, and irreverent is the way to go. Not only is that extremely selfish (how could we not care about our classmates and their concerns?), it's depriving everyone of truly multi-sided discussion on the topic.
• I would like to thank Ms. Murphy for generating such a full-bodied discussion (i.e., FULL OF ROBUST OPINIONS THAT WE DO NOT OFTEN HEAR IN OUR CLASSES) among us -- both in class and via the wiki. LONG LIVE TENSIONS AMONG VARIOUS POINTS OF VIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!

Since it appears that consent to intercourse cannot be adequately given if one party is intoxicated, what obligation does the other party have to inquire into the other's level of inebriation? Is it a defense to say, "Perhaps she was drunk, but how was I to know when she was acting seemingly sober and I hadn't witnessed her drinking?"

• • What do you mean, "since it appears?" I'm not at all sure that this is the law. Could you cite some authority?
  • Perhaps...Wendy Murphy? Oops, that's for another page.
  • This may be a good market for compact breathalyzers.
• feeling so frustrated even antiquated
  • 'cause you can't update me if i'm overrated
  • you can't update this
  • you fly off the handle wait till i'm not there
  • if you will fly off the handle wait till i'm not there
  • 'cause i will talk maybe you will listen, but you won't hear a single word i say
  • i will talk, you will listen
  • we have a house where i'm in your hair; i'll go spare and leave you happy...in there
• I'm not sure if it was Professor Nesson's intent, but Wendy provided us with a perfect example of the importance of being able to see the other side of a dispute. Instead of a positive example, like Archibald Cox, Wendy provided an excellent negative example (sometimes it is important to teach how NOT to do something). I thought there was much in what she was arguing, but it was very hard for us not to dismiss her outright because of her self-righteous, defensive tone and inability to acknowledge anything but a staw man for the other side of the argument. Apparently she is an excellent litigator. My guess (could be wrong) is that she takes a more deferential and open-minded tone when speaking before or writing for a judge. Unfortunately, she decided to treat us as if we were just another O'Reilly audience rather than a group of aspiring judges. And, as this wiki page demonstrates, that clearly wasn't effective advocacy for her cause.

• New Comment: I would like to add a commentary to the exchange of views expressed between two separate entries – the entry beginning “Yesterday and the last time Ms. Murphy…” and a response beginning “Your statement shows very little respect …” I posted the first entry, and my intent was not to harm or be insensitive to the victims of rape nor was it to harm or be insensitive to the accused. I have been the victim of two crimes, and the experiences are still with me today. So, I understand how a classroom experience or an everyday experience could cause harm to a victim of a crime; though, I cannot imagine what it is like to be in the shoes of a rape victim or an accused. It is no doubt particularly difficult for victims and accused parties, because our society is not accustomed to discussions of intimate harms associated with rape, attempted rape, or molestation. To the extent that I caused any pain or anxiety to you, to any other rape victims, or to any accused parties, please accept my apology.
  • However, after re-reading my initial entry, honestly, I do not believe I am displayed a lack of respect for anyone. So, I would like to reiterate the same point -- only in way I hope will be clearer. As potential change-agents (of the law … of societal norms …and of other aspects of society), we have a moral and ethical obligation to understand various (all) points of view in their “raw,” (and perhaps extreme to some), unedited state. By understanding the “raw” state of a particular point of view, depending on our own points of view, we then have the ability to work for change, e.g., by mobilizing against those who hold a particular point of view or by determining how best to pick apart the other side’s argument. Alternatively, we may find, by listening to views contrary to our own (again, however extreme), we need to tweak our own view/position. How else can we achieve ethical and fair treatment under the law – unless everyone’s voice is heard no matter how hard it is to hear? [And, again, I am sorry that it is hard for you.] And this previous question is not rhetorical – Is there any other way to be fair – other than to listen to the views and perspectives of all?
  • When we leave HLS, we will not have the luxury to choose whom we may have to confront on a particular issue; so, it behooves us to understand as many points of view as possible.
  • When I think again about Thursday’s class (01/12), I believe we needed to hear Ms. Murphy, who was relatively pro-victim, and even if she did not respond to all of the counter-points raised. We needed to hear the “pro-due process” perspective (which may also be called pro-defendant) articulated well by many our classmates and even if the points were as forcefully advocated as Ms. Murphy advocated her views. But, as your frustration indicates, what we should have heard but did not hear was the voice of the victim. While Ms. Murphy was vehement that victim due-process is essential and must be a “weighty, constitutional” due process similar to that provided for a defendant, Ms. Murphy’s articulation could not take the place of hearing from a victim as to why this must be so. I wish that we, as Nesson’s Evidence class, could re-visit the crime of rape and the evidence presented. In particular, I would like to re-visit what evidence is present when consent is at issue.
• I wrote the response beginning "Your statement shows very little respect ..." As you have acknowledged, rape is a unique crime. At least as far as I can tell, you're not going to accomplish anything by insisting on a "raw" airing of views. It seems to me that it's all the rage at HLS to play devil's advocate and to be irreverent and, to my mind, disrespectful in the name of "robust discussion." I lived in Los Angeles during the Rodney King beating, trial, and riots, and I remember hearing on the radio and in private conversations the absolutely appalling and ignorant views of those who didn't realize what people of color suffered from the LA police. They didn't see the riots as an expression of desperation and fury, and they didn't use the moment to look at themselves or their society and see what was terribly wrong with it. The comments were racist, sometimes thiny veiled and sometimes not veiled at all. Sometimes they made jokes. Sometimes they focused on the incident in isolation and didn't see the social context: King was a criminal, the police were doing their job, etc. I cringe to think what people of color had to endure in law school classrooms at that time in the name of robust discussion.
  • Wait, so...if one disagrees with Wendy Murphy they are on the same level as a racist? Many of us disagree with her not because we are "all riled up" over victim versus accused, woman versus man, but because we are worried about STATE versus accused, with the state saying "victim be damned." Ms. Murphy revealed that a bit with her oh-so-empathetic (sarcasm here) comment that if a rape victim were reluctant to go forward, she would say, to paraphrase, "tough, society needs you." So, I'm sorry, but I and the rest of the Libertarians are not making jokes and thinly veiled sexist (racist?) comments. We just dislike know-it-all ex-prosecutors, Nancy Grace, etc. The rest of her opponents can speak for themselves, but I doubt they are on the level of racist, either.
    • Ok, to characterize my argument (which actually includes both the paragraph you responded to and the following 2 paragraphs -- somehow a bullet point ended up at the beginning of the paragraph "Some people say ..." but that was meant to go along with the paragraph you responded to) "If one disagrees with Wendy Murphy they are on the same level as a racist" is an unfair, incorrect, and polarizing mischaracterization. The poster I responded to had said that "raw," un-"sensitized," and inflammatory debate regarding rape law, in classes that rape survivors are required to attend and in which their perspective would be valuable, is a good thing. I disagreed and suggested that this kind of debate about rape law is akin to "raw" "unsensitived" and inflammatory debate regarding the Rodney King beating. There are multiple perspectives and concerns associated with criminal law as it pertains to rape cases (just as there are multiple perspectives regarding the Rodney King beating), and we as a community at HLS should create an atmosphere of constructive conversation when discussing them, not a polarizing debate. I, too, disagree with Wendy Murphy on some points -- it's not that I have a problem with people disagreeing with her and doing so vehemently. I just don't think setting up that conversation to be a debate, and creating a tense and stressful environment for survivors is a good thing. I don't think it's a good idea when people are discussing race, and I don't think it's a good idea when people are discussing rape. The tone of voice and demeanor of some of the people in the class was inappropriate given the subject matter, and had it been up to me, I would not have chosen Wendy Murphy to come speak on this topic in that setting.
      • Inappropriate in your opinion...but again, I'd point out that this was supposed to be a page about "responses to Wendy Murphy" not "responses to responses to Wendy Murphy." I'm still looking for that "Criticize your classmates" page on the Wiki but I can't find it. But thanks for labeling my comment "polarizing" and not "racist." I've got to make a list of these ad hominems.
• Some people say, it's better that someone express their unpopular view (King was a criminal, what's the big deal with beating him?) than just think it in their own heads. There is some truth to that, but when the subject matter is incredibly sensitive, and there is potential to hurt a group of people who already feel persecuted and marginalized, the exchange of views must be done carefully. If it isn't, the result is going to be that no one hears anyone else, divisions are deepened, and nothing constructive is done. It's my impression that the King beating and urban police forces' treatment of people of color is no longer a divisive ideological issue, and people no longer feel the need to (or no longer feel justified to) vehemently assert the rights of police officers in a way that made people of color furious and feel misunderstood. If they did, I would advocate opening a class on the subject with some background on the broader social context of the event, ie, information about why minorities in LA were so furious at the time, stats on police brutality, info on minorities' (and whites') views of their social status, etc. I would hope that the leader of the discussion would acknowledge that the topic was inflammatory, people were likely to have deep emotional responses to it, and a productive conversation would not result if there were snickering, inappropriate jokes, etc.
  • You know, I must comment again. And I know I will be blasted, but if you do, try not to club me with the guilt route and just reason with me. Rape is horrible. Victims may heal, but many never do. However, I fail to see how "persecution" and "marginalization" are external activities. Do you really think that the class persecutes rape victims? "Oh, you were raped, I despise you?" How sick is that? Do you think that classmates think: "Oh, a rape victim, her thoughts are worthless and I don't want to sit next to her?" Give us all one example of a joke that was anti-victim. I didn't hear any. No, I think part of the problem is embarassment and self-esteem issues. That's why rape victims get counseling, and that's why immature know-it-alls need real discourse from woman's perspective. What you are saying is essentially this: rape victims hurt; they don't use their voice; please understand their feelings, and forget about debate. This is insensitive, I know...but perhaps if a victim spoke up and told the chucklers about her pain and issues, there'd be a better dialogue. What you ask is that because she chooses to remain silent, we all remain silent. That's fine if you want a panel of speakers or third-party dialogue, but if the class is involved, and you bring in a clown who's rant includes Constitutional analysis from a talking points and ex-DA standpoint, don't be surprised if the class reponds with question and criticism and becomes obnoxious when the speaker treats questions and criticism like dirt. But again, persecute? Marginalize? Polarize (that was mine, originally, on this page, but it's now the attack-o-the-day)? You cannot argue silently. If it is too emotionally or mentally stressful to give voice to the topic, and yet are criticized for not understanding, then we shouldn't have class discussions about this topic at all. Me? I'd prefer the insinuated agony to be acknowledged and addressed rather than used as a curtain from which YOU, and not the victims, hide. Your view is that snickering = anti-rape victim. I suggest that next time you use your voice in the class to address your view and, if it is correct, snap some heads back on straight. Turn on the microphone and make your point. Sitting idly back and complaining ex post serves no purpose. Particularly if your view is wrong, counselor, and the class was gaffawing over Wendy and not rape. I'm not saying that your view is wrong, but now we'll never know, will we?
  • I am a survivor, too, so I know how the survivors feel. And I have spoken out in class and in other contexts, and it has taken an enormous emotional toll on me. What survivors are asking for is a respectful space in which to express ourselves, and on this wiki people are voicing discontent about the way that discussion unfolded in class. Part of that was Wendy Murphy's polarizing presence, and part of that was the immaturity of our classmates -- both in their tone towards Murphy (as misguided as some of her comments were) and in the small group discussions (in mine, there were several inappropriate comments). For you to respond by saying that you don't want your class discussion compromised by 'sensitivity', and that survivors should have to suffer through rape discussions that are antagonistic and polarizing (and should have to talk about their horrible personal experiences in front of an audience of people who don't seem receptive), strikes me as callous and wrong. I and other posters are trying to help you and others understand that if survivors don't have a space in which we feel comfortable speaking, we won't speak, and it seems that you are essentially telling us to suck it up. That's not right. We are expressing discontent ex post about Wendy Murphy and the disucssion her presence engendered, on a message board that was created for that purpose. I could not agree more with the two statements below.
  • I'm a survivor, too, but not of rape. My point was when I spoke up in class, asking for "the two comments...below" I was apparently being anti-victim or making the atmosphere uncomfortable. Well...Wendy is out of control, and I'm not going to sit back and shut up anymore and if you think it's any easier for me than you, you don't have standing to make that comment. nobody said you or anyone must speak up. i did say that if you are silent, and immaturity reigns, who will speak for you, and are you sure it's anti-woman inmaturity? If both answers are no (one) then the wiki is no place to lay on the guilt trip ex post.
• Discussing sensitive issues (race, rape, anti-semitism) is essential to the type of dispute resolution -- of reconciliation --that we discussed today in class. Not discussing sensitive issues leaves a huge portion of the dispute off-the-table.
• Respect is essential to meaningful debate, reconcilation, and dispute resolution.