My blood is boiling and my social media feeds are overflowing with the name "Brock Turner." But why? Is it it because he goes to such a prestigious school like Stanford? Is it because he is an Olympic swimmer? Is it because his dad wrote a ridicules letter condoning his son's actions and proving the relevance of "rape culture" in our society? Is it because there are angry college students, parents, and women activists who are trying to share their disgust with his conviction?
The answer is all of the above. And that is the problem.
First of all, in many of the initial posts about this case, the reporter went on and on about this rapist's athletic accomplishments. Some even had the nerve to post his swim times alongside the article stating that he sexually harassed an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. This information is ludicrous. You have got to be kidding! I do not care if he is a good swimmer, or he goes to a prestigious school, or even if he was the founder of a remarkable non-profit organization - he is a criminal. That is the only sufficient headline and should be his only description. Nothing else matters.
The poor victim, who's life will forever be haunted by this man's decisions to violate her in such a traumatic way, was only recognized as "an intoxicated unconscious woman." That's all she got. How is that fair? I recognize that she remains anonymous for her own safety, but the fact that she was intoxicated also doesn't matter. And what about her accomplishments? She was a college graduate and I bet she had some amazing traits under her belt too, but all she got was "intoxicated unconscious woman." The fact is, both parties were well over the legal drinking limit. Something funny we forgot to mention is that the victim was actually of the legal drinking age, while the rapist was not. Interesting.
Next, I'd like to point out that in the father's letter he pleads for probation, because his son must be very torn up about this situation considering he can't eat his favorite "ribeye" anymore. Once again, irrelevant. He believes that his extremely light sentence of three months with good behavior is a steep price to pay for his "20 minutes of action."
This word choice makes me feel physically ill and is extremely condescending and again, demeans the victim. He also points out that his son has no previous criminal record and has never been violent - including this night. This is a false statement considering sexual harassment is a violent crime and this is evident as the victim woke up in a hospital bleeding.
You know what is also appalling? That he believes his son could "positively contribute to society by educating others on college campuses about alcohol consumption and sexual promiscuity." I don't know how it works at college campuses, but I'm pretty sure if you are a registered sex offender you aren't allowed to be within a few hundred feet of a school for obvious reasons. His father is also upset because Brock's future does not look as perfect as it once had although he still plans to be "in a surgical residency in the next 10 years." Once more, flabbergasted by this statement because I do not think I would be okay with a sexual offender being my surgeon as I lie unconscious, sometimes partially clothed, on a medical table especially when at the time of his attack the victim was also, unconscious.
Some other interesting aspects of this case is the fact that his story had indeed changed and at one point, the victim had consented. So therefore, everything is clean and dandy right?
No. I'm not sure about Stanford's policy, but I am a college student myself. I have gone to two different universities and both required a very long and intense Domestic Violence and Sexual Harassment Training before I was even allowed to register for classes. In these mandatory sessions, I learned time and time again that silence is not consent.
Considering the victim was unconscious, I find it hard to believe she consented. I'll even play devil's advocate and say maybe at the beginning of their interaction she was, the literature and educational videos still state that consent is void with alcohol consumption. It also says that the responsibility for misinterpretation when either party has been drinking falls on the initiator of further sexual activity. (Brock once again guilty) Furthermore, even if she was at first conscious, any intelligent moral person would stop when she became unconscious right? But this of course was not the case, considering the two eye-witnesses found him on top of her while she was not moving and unconscious.
The reason college campuses require these sexual harassment trainings that focus on things like alcohol consumption is because it is such a huge problem. One-in-four women and 1-in-16 men will be a victim of sexual harassment by the time they graduate college. The worst part is, these numbers are actually much worse because things like victim shaming and rape culture that are evidently granted in this case and many others cause victims to stay quiet.Rape culture: The idea that athletes who are charged with rape get to call their victims "career destroyers." Rape culture: the idea that girls "allow themselves to be raped" by drinking or dressing a certain way. Rape culture: telling victims brave enough to share their story that they are lying because they don't have proof. Rape culture: the fact that only 3 percent of rapists ever serve a day in jail. Rape culture: That is the problem.
They say: she should not have drank that much and put herself in this vulnerable situation.
They say: she was an intoxicated unconscious woman.
They say: what did she expect?
How come he is being excused for this violent and invasive criminal act because he was intoxicated? While she is being blamed for being raped because she was intoxicated? Victim shaming is real and it is powerful. I promise you she did not expect this to happen and she is in no way responsible. Just because the victim was born with two x-chromosomes and did not go to Stanford, does not make her inferior to Brock who was born with an x and a y and once had a promising athletic future. It doesn't work like that, but for some reason that's how it seems.
This man is a criminal, this man is violent, this man deserves to be ripped from his future just as he ripped away his innocent victim's future and dignity. The court system is literally letting him off the hook and that is disgraceful to all woman and men who have or will become victims of sexual harassment.
Like his father explains, "one drunken night" had ruined his son's life (not to mention the victim's). But for some reason, he is not being held responsible the way he should be. This is the problem, this is why it is such a huge issue on college campuses, and this is why it is disheartening to see that nothing is being done about it. He is left off the hook for violating an innocent woman, but what if the story was different? What if he got into an accident for a DUI and killed another innocent woman, would he be held accountable? Or would he also be excused because he was intoxicated?
Alcohol is not an excuse. End of story.
