CLUH Get a Clue

I would like to register my quite definite support of the Date Rape Task Force's definition of rape as sex without specific consent. The opposing position endorsed by the Civil Liberties Union of Harvard (CLUH), requiring clear evidence of dissent, or evidence of threats, intimidation and/or coercion, would put the burden on the woman to dissent--that is, a burden of action, not proof. If the definition of rape necessitates explicit dissent, the investigation of any rape will focus on the actions of the woman rather than of the man--his explicit concern for and request of the woman's consent. No other crime focuses its investigation on the actions and intentions of the victim. This shift in the actions that define rape need not mean a shift in the burden of proof, but rather a shift in responsibility.

We must work towards a society in which a man does not have sex with a woman until he is sure he has her specific consent. Therefore the burden must be on the initiator of a sexual encounter to seek explicit consent, and without such consent, in indifference to an absence of an expression of consent, what occurs must be a rape. Harvard's internal rules are a perfect place to define clearly and explicitly the limits of acceptable behavior in this respect, and the Date Rape Task Force's proposed definition can only help students be a good deal clearer about what occurs in sexual relations. Lydia Alix Fillingham   Asst. Prof. in English and Women's Studies