BYU Changes Policy On Sex Assault Cases

[_Fence Sitter]

See CNN article here.

First off let me say I am totally in favor of this because I think penalizing someone for making a small bad decision when they have suffered an assault is simply unwarranted, but that is from my POV as a non-believer. And in most cases I don't even think a bad decision was involved but then I think the "Honor Code" at BYU is simply ridiculous.

The article says BYU

... will not share with the honor code office the identities of victims unless their health is at risk or they request such action.

Well in a religion that teaches sexual immorality is a sin so serious that it is second only to murder, isn't their health (spiritual) at risk in some situations? Say a girl gets into a situation where she says is okay with heavy petting but says no to sex, and then ends up getting raped. Under Mormon morality even heavy petting is a serious sin. Isn't her spiritual health at risk for those who believe in such norms?

To a lessor degree, any sinning puts one's moral health at risk in the Mormon religion and even the appearance of evil is to be avoided at all costs. We have seen the this carried to a ludicrous extreme at BYU where the entire ROTC program was moved off campus simply because BYU could not tolerate the thought of a non member commander having a cup of coffee at home before he came to work.
"OMG he drinks COFFEE!!!! WE CANNOT have him on campus!!!" If anyone of you followed the thread on this over at MAD there were those who defended such a decision by asking why they should be compromising their "Values". Well isn't that exactly what BYU is doing now in the assault cases?

So I ask any believer if they are in favor of this new policy, why? Isn't the moral welfare of the victim more important than anything else? Shouldn't someone who was sinning at the time of the assault have to pay for their sins however small?

Again let me emphasize, I do not subscribe to such notions, but then I think kids having sex is about as natural as it can get, and this nonsense about God disproving of unmarried or gay people having sex is just that, nonsense.

By the way I can totally see the BYU people putting pressure on the victims to confess their minor "sins" to their bishops.

[_DoubtingThomas]

First off let me say I am totally in favor of this because I think penalizing someone for making a small bad decision when they have suffered an assault is simply unwarranted, but that is from my POV as a non-believer.

Me too, but there are some concerns. American psychologist Dr. Carol Tavris wrote an excellent article published in Skeptic Magazine http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/the ... ning-rape/

One commenter summarizes

Russell says: March 30, 2016 at 3:13 am

An excellent article... As the author points out, memory is fallible and easily influenced. If you talk to young women, there is a belief in the rape culture myth, and that not only is the 25% figure true, but as rape is underreported – the real figure is even higher. Add this cultural background, mix it with alcohol and a dose of post-coital regret, and a woman can easily believe she was raped, when an independent observer may say it was consential.

Let me add that believing "sexual immorality is a sin so serious that it is second only to murder" can make the problem worst.

[_I have a question]

Under the confidentiality clause, the Title IX office -- responsible for leading sexual harassment and sexual violence investigations -- will not share with the honor code office the identities of victims unless their health is at risk or they request such action.

Some questions:
How will the Title IX Office make the determination that a victims health is at risk, and how are they qualified to do so?
What qualifies as a health risk?
Will the Title IX Office share information with the Honor Code Office if they have determined the victims health is at risk without informing the victim they are doing so, or even against the wishes of the victim?
On what basis is the Honor Code Office qualified to deal with a victims perceived health risk?
If the Honor Code Office receives notification from the Title IX Office of a victim whose health they have determined is at risk, will the Honor Code subsequently investigate the victim for Honor Code offences?

*This feels like a very big built-in loop hole to enable the Title IX Office and Honor Code Office to continue unabated their current system of sharing information and punishing victims.