The introduction of a Resolution by the UTC Women's Caucus at the most
recent General Faculty meeting has engendered a number of comments
presenting different viewpoints on this document and the most unfortunate
incident that prompted the Resolution. I commend Prof. Stuart for being
willing to take a stand that he knew would not be well received.

 

            Had the resolution been put a vote in the faculty meeting that
day I would have voted for it, though I would prefer a bit different wording
in several places.  I know little of the incident except what I have read in
the paper.  I am also ignorant of the rules of evidence in such cases.
Therefore I assume that Judge Shattuck, abiding by those rules, rendered the
proper legal judgment in this case. (A lack of sufficient legal evidence is
not to deny that the incident may have occurred as charged by the plaintiff.
But apparently sufficient proof was lacking.) Rape is a serious and
frequently ambiguous crime and a charge of rape is also a serious matter. 

 

            I think it is possible and desirable to separate the goals of
the Resolution from the alleged crime that prompted it.  The former are
important no matter what the judicial disposition of this particular case
and should stand on their own.  We all want a campus that is and has the
appearance of being safe for our students, safe enough that we would be
comfortable with our own children being here.  It is to pursue this vital
objective that we should examine the language of the Resolution. 

 

            Jim Hiestand

            


* UTCSTAFF home page:  http://raven.utc.edu/archives/utcstaff.html *
* unsubscribe:  mailto:[log in to unmask]  *
*   subscribe:  mailto:[log in to unmask]    *