loki-has-a-tardis:

This is honestly the best poster I have found in a while supporting breast cancer awareness. I am honestly so sick of seeing, “set the tatas free” and “save the boobies”. There is no reason in hell a life threatening, life ruining disease should be sexualized. “Don’t wear a bra day,” go fuck yourselves. You’re not saving a pair of tits, you’re saving the entire package: mind, body, and soul included. Women are not just a pair of breasts.

loki-has-a-tardis:

This is honestly the best poster I have found in a while supporting breast cancer awareness. I am honestly so sick of seeing, “set the tatas free” and “save the boobies”. There is no reason in hell a life threatening, life ruining disease should be sexualized. “Don’t wear a bra day,” go fuck yourselves. You’re not saving a pair of tits, you’re saving the entire package: mind, body, and soul included. Women are not just a pair of breasts.

Sunday Oct 19 @ 09:58pm

knowhomo:

Here’s the Status of Gay Marriage in All 50 States

Moudi Sbeity, Derek Kitchen

The Supreme Court turned away appeals this week that effectively raised the number of states allowing the practice from 19 to 30. On Tuesday, a federal appeals court rejected bans in Idaho and Nevada, which would become the 31st and 32nd states with same-sex marriage if the ruling is not put on hold for the Supreme Court to consider.

Here’s the status of gay marriage in all 50 states:

———

WHERE GAY MARRIAGE IS STILL NOT LEGAL AND CASES ARE PENDING:

— ALABAMA — Lawsuits challenging the ban have been filed in each of the state’s three federal court districts, but judges have yet to rule. The state is defending the prohibition.

— ALASKA — A federal judge is hearing arguments Friday in a case filed by five couples challenging the state’s ban.

— ARIZONA — Lawyers in two pending federal lawsuits that challenge Arizona’s same-sex marriage ban are expected to urge the judge overseeing them to take note of a ruling Tuesday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and immediately strike down the ban. The appeals court threw out gay marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada on constitutional grounds. The same issues have been raised by gay couples in Arizona’s lawsuits.

— ARKANSAS — A state judge in May struck down the state’s ban. The state Supreme Court brought marriages to a halt and is weighing state officials’ appeal. Same-sex couples are also suing the state in federal court.

— FLORIDA — A federal judge declared the state’s ban unconstitutional in mid-August, joining state judges in four counties. He issued a stay delaying the effect of his order, meaning no marriage licenses would be issued immediately issued for gay couples.

— GEORGIA — A lawsuit challenging the state’s ban was filed in federal court in Atlanta in April. The state wants to dismiss the suit, but the judge has not ruled. Lawyers for the ban’s challengers say the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial to consider other cases supports their arguments.

— KENTUCKY — Two Kentucky cases were among six from four states heard in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati on Aug. 6. Rulings are pending on recognition of out-of-state marriages, as well as the ban on marriages within the state.

— LOUISIANA — A federal judge’s ruling in September upholding the state’s ban has been appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A state judge ruled in a separate case that the ban is unconstitutional, a ruling that has been suspended while the state attorney general appeals to the state Supreme Court.

— MICHIGAN — The state’s ban was overturned by a federal judge in March following a rare trial that mostly focused on the impact on children. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati heard arguments Aug. 6, and a ruling is pending.

— MISSISSIPPI — The state Supreme Court has been asked to hear arguments on a woman’s effort to get her marriage in another state recognized in Mississippi for purposes of getting a divorce.

— MISSOURI — The state attorney general said Monday he wouldn’t appeal a state court order that Missouri recognize marriages from in other states. But two other cases are pending: A federal challenge in Kansas City and one in St. Louis that focuses on city officials who issued licenses to four couples to trigger a legal test.

— MONTANA — Four couples challenged the state’s ban in a lawsuit that was filed in May and is pending in U.S. District Court. A Montana ACLU official said Tuesday’s decision by the 9th Circuit to strike down Idaho’s ban on gay marriage likely means Montana’s voter-approved ban also will be declared unconstitutional. Republican Attorney General Tim Fox is reviewing the decision, a spokesman said.

— NEBRASKA — The state’s ban remains intact. A federal judge struck it down in 2005, but an appeals court reversed the decision. Last year, a state judge refused to grant a divorce to two women who wed in Iowa in 2009. The state Supreme Court dismissed the case in June on procedural grounds.

— NORTH DAKOTA — Seven couples sued in June over the state’s ban; a U.S. district judge now must decide whether to rule or hear oral arguments.

— OHIO — Two Ohio cases were argued Aug. 6 in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and a ruling is pending. In one, two gay men whose spouses were dying sued to have their out-of-state marriages recognized on their spouses’ death certificates. In the other, four couples sued to have both spouses listed on their children’s birth certificates.

— SOUTH DAKOTA — Six couples sued in May over the state’s ban, and arguments are being scheduled in U.S. district court on the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit; their attorney pledges to appeal to a federal circuit appeals court if they lose.

— TENNESSEE — The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Aug. 6 on whether Tennessee’s refusal to recognize a valid marriage from another state is constitutional. A ruling is pending.

— TEXAS — A federal judge declared the state’s ban unconstitutional, issuing a preliminary injunction. The state is appealing to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which is soon expected to set a date for arguments.

——

WHERE GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGAL:

— CALIFORNIA (2013)

— COLORADO (Oct. 6, 2014) — The state attorney general on Tuesday ordered all the state’s counties to issue licenses now that the state Supreme Court has lifted previous orders barring that.

— CONNECTICUT (2008)

— DELAWARE (2013)

— HAWAII (2013) — The Legislature legalized gay marriage last year, and couples continue to marry. An appeal is pending on a federal ruling that upheld Hawaii’s previous ban. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hasn’t specifically ruled on Hawaii, although on Tuesday it rejected bans in Idaho and Nevada after hearing arguments from all three states.

— IDAHO — The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday rejected appeals by state officials to retain the state’s ban.

— ILLINOIS (June 2014)

— INDIANA (Oct. 6, 2014) — The state attorney general’s office ordered county clerks across the state to issue licenses. Republican Gov. Mike Pence said his administration will follow the court’s decisions even though he remains committed to traditional marriage.

— IOWA (2009)

— KANSAS (Oct. 6, 2014) — The American Civil Liberties Union says the Supreme Court decision in the 10th Circuit cases affects Kansas because it’s in that circuit; the group plans to seek a federal court ruling to block Kansas’ constitutional ban on gay marriage. Gov. Sam Brownback was defiant, saying he swore to uphold the constitution, and some same-sex couples who applied for marriage licenses were turned away.

— MAINE (2012)

— MARYLAND (2013)

— MASSACHUSETTS (2004) — The first state to legalize gay marriage.

— MINNESOTA (2013)

— NEVADA — The 9th Circuit on Tuesday rejected the state’s ban. Officials in the Clark County clerk’s office say the marriage license bureau in Las Vegas will begin accepting license applications Wednesday from same-sex couples.

— NEW HAMPSHIRE (2010)

— NEW JERSEY (2013)

— NEW MEXICO (2013)

— NEW YORK (2011)

— NORTH CAROLINA (Oct. 6, 2014) — The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina says it will seek an immediate ruling in federal court overturning the state’s ban. The state attorney general has previously said he wouldn’t challenge such a ruling.

— OKLAHOMA (Oct. 6, 2014) — Tulsa County issued a marriage license Monday to Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin, the couple who successfully challenged the state’s ban. Several other counties also issued licenses.

— OREGON (May 2014)

— PENNSYLVANIA (May 2014)

— RHODE ISLAND (2013)

— SOUTH CAROLINA (Oct. 6, 2014) — A lawyer for a gay couple seeking to overturn the state’s ban on gay marriage said she will ask a federal judge to immediately rule in their favor. The attorney general said he will continue to fight to uphold the ban.

— UTAH (Oct. 6, 2014) — A handful of same-sex weddings occurred in Salt Lake County after the governor directed state agencies to recognize the marriages Monday. The state said Tuesday it will also drop an appeal in which it sought not to recognize out-of-state marriages.

— VERMONT (2009) — The first state to offer civil unions, in 2001.

— VIRGINIA (Oct. 6, 2014) — A day after the first same-sex couples wed, the governor ordered state agencies to comply with the new terrain, including allowing gay employees to add spouses and dependents to their health insurance.

— WASHINGTON, D.C. (2010)

— WASHINGTON STATE (2012)

— WEST VIRGINIA (Oct. 6, 2014) — A federal judge lifted his hold on a lawsuit challenging the state’s ban.

— WISCONSIN (Oct. 6, 2014) — County clerks are accepting applications for licenses which, by state law, can’t be issued until after a five-day waiting period.

— WYOMING (Oct. 6, 2014) — Lingering uncertainty over whether gay marriage is allowed in Wyoming prevented same-sex couples from marrying there Tuesday, prompting four couples to file a federal lawsuit a day after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld gay marriage by refusing to hear appeals on the issue. Those appeals included one from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Wyoming.

Map Source

Article Source

Wednesday Oct 15 @ 12:47pm
halftheskymovement:

A growing number of female drivers have defied cultural norms and taken to the streets of Afghanistan, but their bravery has been met with opposition.17-year-old Zainab Zawol Shahidy was driving home from school when she was pulled over by gun-toting men who threatened to kidnap her. Despite the risk and danger, Shahidy says she loves to drive and will continue to do so. She has the support of her older brother Ali, who rides as a passenger when he is with her. “I want both men and women to see us together and to see her driving. The more people who see women driving on streets, the more common it becomes,” he said.Read more via Washington Post.

halftheskymovement:

A growing number of female drivers have defied cultural norms and taken to the streets of Afghanistan, but their bravery has been met with opposition.

17-year-old Zainab Zawol Shahidy was driving home from school when she was pulled over by gun-toting men who threatened to kidnap her. Despite the risk and danger, Shahidy says she loves to drive and will continue to do so. She has the support of her older brother Ali, who rides as a passenger when he is with her. “I want both men and women to see us together and to see her driving. The more people who see women driving on streets, the more common it becomes,” he said.

Read more via Washington Post.

Wednesday Oct 15 @ 09:40am
thepeoplesrecord:

TW: Rape, sexual assault - An open letter to President Bollinger & the board of trustees by the parents of Emma SulkowiczOctober 5, 2014
On April 18, 2013, our daughter, Emma Sulkowicz, CC ’15, reported that she was raped by a fellow student to the Office of Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct.
What followed was a prolonged, degrading, and ultimately fruitless process. It was an injury to her humanity from what was once, for her, a trusted institution. The trauma of this process has contributed to the rerouting of her life, her identity, and the form of her self-expression as an artist.
Emma’s performance piece, “Carry That Weight,” has galvanized forces around the world for gender equality, sexual assault policy reform, and empowerment of the disenfranchised, and has received praise from the art world. Needless to say, we are proud.
However, as Emma’s parents, we do not want her recent celebrity to be a distraction from the fact that the University’s failure to place sanctions on the man she reported for rape, Jean-Paul Nungesser, CC ’15 (whose name has previously been published by Spectator), is a cause of her continued suffering. The investigation, hearing, and appeals process that followed her complaint to the University were painfully mishandled. We feel that they violated standards of impartiality, fairness, and serious attention to the facts of the case.
When we wrote to University President Lee Bollinger on Nov. 18, 2013, we assumed that alerting him to the facts of the case, the existence of procedural errors, and the failure to abide by University policy in the scheduling and administration of the hearing would engender his concern.
We also assumed that the violent and serial nature of the claims being adjudicated would make the case one that necessitated careful oversight.
We received no reply from President Bollinger, and our daughter’s request for an appeal was subsequently denied by Columbia College Dean James Valentini. We were left with the impression of a University intent on sweeping the issue of campus rape under the rug.
In retrospect, it’s hard to see the conduct of the investigation of our daughter’s complaint and the subsequent hearing as anything but a circus. Emma complied with the administrator’s recommendation that she not engage a lawyer for outside advice, and was advised solely by Rosalie Siler, then Assistant Director of Student Services for Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct. But Ms. Siler did not effectively present our daughter’s case to the panel, and the deck was stacked against Emma. Here are some of the most telling instances during the process:
1) During the hearing, Nungesser, advised by his outside attorney, lied in order to cast doubt upon Emma’s character and present an alternative and perverse motivation for her complaint. Our daughter was instructed by Ms. Siler not to answer these allegations in any way, and not even to inform the panel that he was lying. He repeatedly stated that there was an online video that he was not allowed to show the panelists, but wished he could, because it “proved that she had an irrational fear of immobilization,” which would lead her to imagine or lie about being raped even if the experience was actually consensual. Emma begged Ms. Siler to allow her to expose the lie by explaining the video’s content to the panelists, but was refused. In the video, which was an interview posted as part of a women’s issues project, Emma, then 18 and a fencer on Columbia’s varsity team, talked only about a fencing injury and her drive to do extra strength training after her recovery because of her fear of being weak. The “immobilization” was a walking cast she’d had to wear on her foot. The online project is still readily viewable, and the boldness of the lie can be easily verified.
2) Emma was not allowed to explain, in her own words, the timing of her reporting. Emma tried to explain that, after meeting two women who told her they too had been raped by Nungesser (only one of whom filed a complaint), she realized that she should overcome personal shame and report him to ensure the safety of others. Ms. Siler told her to stop talking and pulled her from the room. To the panelists, the timing of Emma’s decision to report that she was raped—seven months after she said it had occurred—remained a mystery. The reason for her conflict with Ms. Siler could only be fodder for their speculation.
3) The fact that Nungesser had previously been found “responsible” by a Columbia panel for following another Columbia student to her room, shoving his way in, forcefully pinning, and groping her was not allowed as evidence in Emma’s hearing. Just days before her hearing, Dean Valentini granted an appeal of this verdict, which re-opened the case and consequently disallowed it as evidence. This effectively hamstrung Emma’s case. (An aside: The final hearing for this other case was scheduled and held at a time the complainant had specified that she was not available to testify. Without her presence, the original panel’s “responsible” verdict was easily overturned.)
4) Because of the accommodation of multiple postponement requests by Nungesser, Emma’s hearing did not take place for six and a half months. This included allowing him to be unavailable for an entire summer vacation. Not only were these delays cruel to our daughter and our family, they were contrary to the 60 day recommended timeframe imposed by Columbia’s (and federal) policy.
5) Dean Valentini responded to Emma’s request for an appeal by taking the unusual step of “re-convening” the same panel that had returned the “not responsible” decision, and discussing the case with them to inform his decision. This did not constitute a fair, independent, and unbiased look at the proceedings, and it is not the way an appeal should be either granted or denied.
6) Emma’s request that the investigative report presented to the panelists be cleared of errors and presented in clear narrative form was denied. Due to the carelessness of the investigator’s note-taking, the incoherent report—full of confusing errata and addenda—contained factual errors as well, such as the length of time that Emma said Nungesser lay next to her after the incident, (seconds not “minutes”). There is no doubt that the denial of this request actively hurt her case.
Columbia is now at the center of a national discussion on the performance of our society in preventing and adjudicating sexual assault, and protecting the rights of survivors.
Although Emma filed a criminal report with the NYPD against Nungesser, she has learned from the district attorney’s office that pursuit of criminal charges would result in another prolonged investigation and adjudication that would not be resolved during the remainder of her time at Columbia University. Thus, over two years after the incident, Emma remains dependent on the University to determine whether Nungesser remains on campus.
We feel that the board and the President have the opportunity to modify the course of events in keeping with what they deem best for the University and for our daughter given their right to exercise oversight over the administration of the University as a whole. As other avenues have failed, we wish that the President and the board would act as a higher court of appeals, and allow Emma a properly conducted retrial in which she has the right to an advocate, unfettered by conflict of interest, who will prosecute her case on her behalf; the right to present the best case possible; the right to present her motivations truthfully; the right to cross-examine; the right to answer unfounded allegations about her character; and the ability to demonstrate a pattern of behavior on the part of the accused party.
At the very least, we recommend that Nungesser be expelled for lying at his hearing. Truthfulness is an absolute requirement for any system of justice to operate. Allowing Nungesser to lie with impunity makes a mockery of all such proceedings, and violates the spirit of the University itself.
Meanwhile, Columbia’s policies remain problematic and affect other students.
The policy that disallowed the fact of multiple allegations against the accused as evidence in Emma’s hearing still remains. Columbia’s policy states that respondents must have been found responsible by a panel before an additional allegation of similar behavior can be used as evidence. This is a stricter filtering of evidence than even exists in many courts of law. Evidence for a pattern of behavior is crucial to the adjudication of some crimes—such as rape—and is recognized by most legal systems. If several victims’ voices together cannot be deemed stronger than a single victim’s voice, the system is deaf.
In this light, Columbia’s policies seem to be overly concerned with litigious reprisal by displeased respondents. This misguided policy supports unexamined prejudices and discrimination against women.
It also deprives those who are guilty the chance to learn and reform their behavior, and does them no good service. (We feel that expulsion for a crime at a young age is a much milder and potentially more instructive punishment than incarceration at a later age.)
We find it necessary to remind the University that rape is not merely an assault on the body, but an assault on the mind, and in particular, the will. Those who have withstood the violence of rape are often injured in their ability to assert themselves and to trust that they will be treated with humanity when they attempt to be heard. It is inhumane and unrealistic to expect that every survivor of sexual assault who can bear reliable witness will also have the strength, determination, and support that are currently required to lodge, and see to its conclusion, a formal complaint.
It is clear that Columbia’s misunderstanding of the psychology of sexual assault survivors has contributed to abysmal rates of reporting, with even lower rates of those who continue to an investigation.
If Columbia remains passive in the face of Emma’s suffering, and does not attempt to rectify the injustice done to her, survivors at Columbia will feel discouraged from entrusting themselves to the system that Columbia has recently worked so hard at putting into place.
In a few months, Emma and Paul will graduate. If Columbia does not act to expel him before then, their graduation will not relieve Columbia of the burden of this episode. Instead, in this important moment in the history of sexual assault on college campuses, Columbia will remain indelibly in the public mind as the university where good men and women did nothing.
The authors, Sandra Leong, M.D. and Kerry J. Sulkowicz, M.D., are the parents of Emma Sulkowicz, CC ’15.
Source

thepeoplesrecord:

TW: Rape, sexual assault - An open letter to President Bollinger & the board of trustees by the parents of Emma Sulkowicz
October 5, 2014

On April 18, 2013, our daughter, Emma Sulkowicz, CC ’15, reported that she was raped by a fellow student to the Office of Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct.

What followed was a prolonged, degrading, and ultimately fruitless process. It was an injury to her humanity from what was once, for her, a trusted institution. The trauma of this process has contributed to the rerouting of her life, her identity, and the form of her self-expression as an artist.

Emma’s performance piece, “Carry That Weight,” has galvanized forces around the world for gender equality, sexual assault policy reform, and empowerment of the disenfranchised, and has received praise from the art world. Needless to say, we are proud.

However, as Emma’s parents, we do not want her recent celebrity to be a distraction from the fact that the University’s failure to place sanctions on the man she reported for rape, Jean-Paul Nungesser, CC ’15 (whose name has previously been published by Spectator), is a cause of her continued suffering. The investigation, hearing, and appeals process that followed her complaint to the University were painfully mishandled. We feel that they violated standards of impartiality, fairness, and serious attention to the facts of the case.

When we wrote to University President Lee Bollinger on Nov. 18, 2013, we assumed that alerting him to the facts of the case, the existence of procedural errors, and the failure to abide by University policy in the scheduling and administration of the hearing would engender his concern.

We also assumed that the violent and serial nature of the claims being adjudicated would make the case one that necessitated careful oversight.

We received no reply from President Bollinger, and our daughter’s request for an appeal was subsequently denied by Columbia College Dean James Valentini. We were left with the impression of a University intent on sweeping the issue of campus rape under the rug.

In retrospect, it’s hard to see the conduct of the investigation of our daughter’s complaint and the subsequent hearing as anything but a circus. Emma complied with the administrator’s recommendation that she not engage a lawyer for outside advice, and was advised solely by Rosalie Siler, then Assistant Director of Student Services for Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct. But Ms. Siler did not effectively present our daughter’s case to the panel, and the deck was stacked against Emma. Here are some of the most telling instances during the process:

1) During the hearing, Nungesser, advised by his outside attorney, lied in order to cast doubt upon Emma’s character and present an alternative and perverse motivation for her complaint. Our daughter was instructed by Ms. Siler not to answer these allegations in any way, and not even to inform the panel that he was lying. He repeatedly stated that there was an online video that he was not allowed to show the panelists, but wished he could, because it “proved that she had an irrational fear of immobilization,” which would lead her to imagine or lie about being raped even if the experience was actually consensual. Emma begged Ms. Siler to allow her to expose the lie by explaining the video’s content to the panelists, but was refused. In the video, which was an interview posted as part of a women’s issues project, Emma, then 18 and a fencer on Columbia’s varsity team, talked only about a fencing injury and her drive to do extra strength training after her recovery because of her fear of being weak. The “immobilization” was a walking cast she’d had to wear on her foot. The online project is still readily viewable, and the boldness of the lie can be easily verified.

2) Emma was not allowed to explain, in her own words, the timing of her reporting. Emma tried to explain that, after meeting two women who told her they too had been raped by Nungesser (only one of whom filed a complaint), she realized that she should overcome personal shame and report him to ensure the safety of others. Ms. Siler told her to stop talking and pulled her from the room. To the panelists, the timing of Emma’s decision to report that she was raped—seven months after she said it had occurred—remained a mystery. The reason for her conflict with Ms. Siler could only be fodder for their speculation.

3) The fact that Nungesser had previously been found “responsible” by a Columbia panel for following another Columbia student to her room, shoving his way in, forcefully pinning, and groping her was not allowed as evidence in Emma’s hearing. Just days before her hearing, Dean Valentini granted an appeal of this verdict, which re-opened the case and consequently disallowed it as evidence. This effectively hamstrung Emma’s case. (An aside: The final hearing for this other case was scheduled and held at a time the complainant had specified that she was not available to testify. Without her presence, the original panel’s “responsible” verdict was easily overturned.)

4) Because of the accommodation of multiple postponement requests by Nungesser, Emma’s hearing did not take place for six and a half months. This included allowing him to be unavailable for an entire summer vacation. Not only were these delays cruel to our daughter and our family, they were contrary to the 60 day recommended timeframe imposed by Columbia’s (and federal) policy.

5) Dean Valentini responded to Emma’s request for an appeal by taking the unusual step of “re-convening” the same panel that had returned the “not responsible” decision, and discussing the case with them to inform his decision. This did not constitute a fair, independent, and unbiased look at the proceedings, and it is not the way an appeal should be either granted or denied.

6) Emma’s request that the investigative report presented to the panelists be cleared of errors and presented in clear narrative form was denied. Due to the carelessness of the investigator’s note-taking, the incoherent report—full of confusing errata and addenda—contained factual errors as well, such as the length of time that Emma said Nungesser lay next to her after the incident, (seconds not “minutes”). There is no doubt that the denial of this request actively hurt her case.

Columbia is now at the center of a national discussion on the performance of our society in preventing and adjudicating sexual assault, and protecting the rights of survivors.

Although Emma filed a criminal report with the NYPD against Nungesser, she has learned from the district attorney’s office that pursuit of criminal charges would result in another prolonged investigation and adjudication that would not be resolved during the remainder of her time at Columbia University. Thus, over two years after the incident, Emma remains dependent on the University to determine whether Nungesser remains on campus.

We feel that the board and the President have the opportunity to modify the course of events in keeping with what they deem best for the University and for our daughter given their right to exercise oversight over the administration of the University as a whole. As other avenues have failed, we wish that the President and the board would act as a higher court of appeals, and allow Emma a properly conducted retrial in which she has the right to an advocate, unfettered by conflict of interest, who will prosecute her case on her behalf; the right to present the best case possible; the right to present her motivations truthfully; the right to cross-examine; the right to answer unfounded allegations about her character; and the ability to demonstrate a pattern of behavior on the part of the accused party.

At the very least, we recommend that Nungesser be expelled for lying at his hearing. Truthfulness is an absolute requirement for any system of justice to operate. Allowing Nungesser to lie with impunity makes a mockery of all such proceedings, and violates the spirit of the University itself.

Meanwhile, Columbia’s policies remain problematic and affect other students.

The policy that disallowed the fact of multiple allegations against the accused as evidence in Emma’s hearing still remains. Columbia’s policy states that respondents must have been found responsible by a panel before an additional allegation of similar behavior can be used as evidence. This is a stricter filtering of evidence than even exists in many courts of law. Evidence for a pattern of behavior is crucial to the adjudication of some crimes—such as rape—and is recognized by most legal systems. If several victims’ voices together cannot be deemed stronger than a single victim’s voice, the system is deaf.

In this light, Columbia’s policies seem to be overly concerned with litigious reprisal by displeased respondents. This misguided policy supports unexamined prejudices and discrimination against women.

It also deprives those who are guilty the chance to learn and reform their behavior, and does them no good service. (We feel that expulsion for a crime at a young age is a much milder and potentially more instructive punishment than incarceration at a later age.)

We find it necessary to remind the University that rape is not merely an assault on the body, but an assault on the mind, and in particular, the will. Those who have withstood the violence of rape are often injured in their ability to assert themselves and to trust that they will be treated with humanity when they attempt to be heard. It is inhumane and unrealistic to expect that every survivor of sexual assault who can bear reliable witness will also have the strength, determination, and support that are currently required to lodge, and see to its conclusion, a formal complaint.

It is clear that Columbia’s misunderstanding of the psychology of sexual assault survivors has contributed to abysmal rates of reporting, with even lower rates of those who continue to an investigation.

If Columbia remains passive in the face of Emma’s suffering, and does not attempt to rectify the injustice done to her, survivors at Columbia will feel discouraged from entrusting themselves to the system that Columbia has recently worked so hard at putting into place.

In a few months, Emma and Paul will graduate. If Columbia does not act to expel him before then, their graduation will not relieve Columbia of the burden of this episode. Instead, in this important moment in the history of sexual assault on college campuses, Columbia will remain indelibly in the public mind as the university where good men and women did nothing.

The authors, Sandra Leong, M.D. and Kerry J. Sulkowicz, M.D., are the parents of Emma Sulkowicz, CC ’15.

Source

Sunday Oct 5 @ 12:24pm

thepeoplesrecord:

Court ruling devastates Texas’ abortion clinic infrastructure
October 5, 2014

The number of abortion clinics in the second most populous state is dwindling to just eight, following a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that allows a stringent new law to take effect immediately in Texas. On Thursday night, a panel of conservative judges reversed an earlier decision that allowed 13 clinics to remain open for the past several weeks.

Now, as those facilities are no longer allowed to remain operating, Texas residents are waking up to learn that the number of health care facilities in their communities has been drastically reduced overnight. “This is a devastating day for Texas women,” Jennifer Dalven, the director of the Reproductive Freedom Project at the ACLU, said in a statement.

Thursday’s decision is the latest installment in the battle over HB 2, the package of harsh abortion restrictions that Texas lawmakers approved last summer despite gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis’ infamous filibuster against the legislation. An earlier provision of the law, which started going into effect last fall, requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges from local hospitals, an unnecessary business arrangement that has forced half of the state’s clinics to close their doors already. Another portion of HB 2, which requires abortion clinics to make costly renovations to bring their building codes in line with ambulatory surgical centers, will now also take effect.

Just eight clinics in the entire state of Texas are currently certified as ambulatory surgical centers, or ASCs. They’re all located in San Antonio, Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin and Houston. With the building code restrictions in effect, a broad swaths of the state — including the incredibly impoverished regions along the Mexico border — is now left without any clinics for hundreds of miles. Texas’ new reproductive rights landscape is illustrated in the above map from the Texas Tribune.

“What we have been fearing is now official: Texas faces a health care crisis, brought on by its own legislators,” Amy Hagstrom Miller, who used to operate five clinics in the state, said in a statement in response to the ruling.

Hagstrom Miller, the CEO of a group called Whole Woman’s Health, has just one clinic left under HB 2: A building that she rents in San Antonio that was already certified as an ASC when she moved in. She has been fighting hard to keep her other clinics operating, particularly the facilities she used to run in the Rio Grande Valley, a border community where immigrant women are left without many health care options. But in a recent interview with ThinkProgress, she explained that building more ASCs is simply not a tenable option.

“I wouldn’t be able to afford to raise the money for a $3 million ambulatory surgical center as a small business owner. There’s no bank that’s going to lend that money to me,” Hagstrom Miller said. “Plus, I would not be interested in building from the ground up. I think it’s the wrong solution on many levels. Philosophically, it’s wrong because it’s completely based on misinformation — it has nothing to do with patient care. It’s also, to me, just a poor use of resources. I could help so many women have safe abortions for $400 dollars rather than put $3 million dollars into a building.”

Medical experts have repeatedly spoken out against Texas’ new law, saying that the requirements won’t do anything to improve abortion clinics. Abortion is already an incredibly safe medical procedure that’s less risky than colonoscopies, gallbladder surgery, knee replacement surgery, or giving birth to a child. Both the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) oppose requiring abortion providers to get hospital admitting privileges. ACOG also opposes imposing additional building code requirements on clinics.

Nonetheless, these type of restrictions are rapidly advancing throughout the country. Known as the “Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers,” or TRAP, these laws have particularly taken root in Southern states, where an estimated 8.6 million women of reproductive age may soon be left with just 12 abortion clinics across five states.

TRAP laws are typically framed as protecting women’s health, even though there’sabsolutely no relationship between harsh abortion restrictions and better health outcomes. But that hasn’t stopped conservative judges in the Fifth Circuit frombuying into the framing. According to Nancy Northup, the president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, the most recent court decision in Texas “is an endorsement of politicians’ disingenuous tactic of undermining women’s safety under the false pretext of protecting it.”

Source

Sunday Oct 5 @ 12:23pm
Wednesday Oct 1 @ 03:14pm

Monday Aug 25 @ 01:52pm
thenerdyindividual:

Look guys, I know the challenge is for a good cause which I fully support but if you live in California please don’t do it! We’re in the middle of a serious drought and all the water that you use, counts! The water you use for the challenge including the ice, is contributing to this emergency level drought! If you really feel the need to do the challenge, change it so it won’t affect our water usage!  I know it’s a relatively small amount but every drop of water counts. Turn off your sprinklers. Cut your showers short. Fix that leaky faucet. Do your part. Spread the word! Here are some links to educate yourself.
A serious one about our drought:
http://ca.gov/drought/
A funny yet logical one:https://youtube.com/watch?v=YAcmOuww-D8
Ideas on how to not waste water doing the challenge:
http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/08/the-california-drought-versus-the-ice-bucket-challenge/378776/

thenerdyindividual:

Look guys, I know the challenge is for a good cause which I fully support but if you live in California please don’t do it! We’re in the middle of a serious drought and all the water that you use, counts! The water you use for the challenge including the ice, is contributing to this emergency level drought! If you really feel the need to do the challenge, change it so it won’t affect our water usage!  I know it’s a relatively small amount but every drop of water counts. Turn off your sprinklers. Cut your showers short. Fix that leaky faucet. Do your part. Spread the word! Here are some links to educate yourself.

A serious one about our drought:

http://ca.gov/drought/

A funny yet logical one:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=YAcmOuww-D8

Ideas on how to not waste water doing the challenge:

http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/08/the-california-drought-versus-the-ice-bucket-challenge/378776/

Sunday Aug 24 @ 08:43pm

Saturday Aug 23 @ 10:37pm

The growing number of gated communities in our nation is but one example of the obsession with safety. With guards at the gate, individuals still have bars and elaborate internal security systems. Americans spend more than thirty billion dollars a year on security. When I have stayed with friends in these communities and inquired as to whether all the security is in response to an actual danger I am told “not really,” that it is the fear of threat rather than a real threat that is the catalyst for an obsession with safety that borders on madness.

Culturally we bear witness to this madness every day. We can all tell endless stories of how it makes itself known in everyday life. For example, an adult white male answers the door when a young Asian male rings the bell. We live in a culture where without responding to any gesture of aggression or hostility on the part of the stranger, who is simply lost and trying to find the correct address, the white male shoots him, believing he is protecting his life and his property. This is an everyday example of madness. The person who is really the threat here is the home owner who has been so well socialized by the thinking of white supremacy, of capitalism, of patriarchy that he can no longer respond rationally.

White supremacy has taught him that all people of color are threats irrespective of their behavior. Capitalism has taught him that, at all costs, his property can and must be protected. Patriarchy has taught him that his masculinity has to be proved by the willingness to conquer fear through aggression; that it would be unmanly to ask questions before taking action. Mass media then brings us the news of this in a newspeak manner that sounds almost jocular and celebratory, as though no tragedy has happened, as though the sacrifice of a young life was necessary to uphold property values and white patriarchal honor. Viewers are encouraged feel sympathy for the white male home owner who made a mistake. The fact that this mistake led to the violent death of an innocent young man does not register; the narrative is worded in a manner that encourages viewers to identify with the one who made the mistake by doing what we are led to feel we might all do to “protect our property at all costs from any sense of perceived threat. ” This is what the worship of death looks like.

bell hooks, All About Love: New Visions (via full-and-by) Friday Aug 15 @ 03:19pm
Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Elie Wiesel (via tomriddl) Thursday Aug 14 @ 08:59am

candidinatlanta:

Social justice in the cracks of city. I came across these feminist posters near 5 points. It brings conversations to the table about society’s treatment of women. Atlanta has always been a melting pot in the south and has a rich history of social activism.

…I wonder who the artist is?

Friday Aug 8 @ 11:36am
I think a lot of people don’t understand that when we talk about these issues—blackface, rape jokes, the appropriation of marginalized cultures, and so on—we are having an ethical conversation, not a legal one. There is no thought police. No one’s coming to your house and carting you off to Insensitivity Prison. But you, as a person living on this planet, get to make a choice whether you want to hurt people or help people. Whether you want to listen or shut people out. I can’t imagine why you’d choose “defensive shithead” over “nice lady capable of empathy,” but okey dokey. Oklahoma Governor’s Daughter Enrages Native American Protestors (via meggannn) Thursday Aug 7 @ 02:37am
forties-fifties-sixties-love:

1969

forties-fifties-sixties-love:

1969

Wednesday Aug 6 @ 10:28am

tripleacontent:

BBC: Biased Broadcasting & Censorship.

Tuesday Aug 5 @ 03:36pm
next


powered by tumblr | themed by fusels