Abortion column did not address real problem
To the editor:
I appreciate Yoni Cohen’s column on “Abort Racial Discrimination” and his thoughts on the complicated and controversial issues of abortion and discrimination. The flyers he refers to are from Students for Life’s hosting of Connie Eller last semester. Eller, from St. Louis, is a prominent figure in Black Americans for Life and the organization of the Say SO March to bring awareness about abortion and its effects on the black community.
Yoni brings up some valid issues, but I would like to add some more for consideration. Eller, when she visited last semester, spoke primarily about Margaret Sanger, the founder of American Birth Control League, which later morphed into Planned Parenthood. She was the leading figure in advocating birth control methods in the 1920s and founded the well-known journal Birth Control Review. Unfortunately, she believed in the use of birth control tactics for the purpose keeping what she viewed as “unwanted” (poor and minority) populations at bay.
Despite Yoni’s claim that Students for Life employs this information to support the outlawing of abortion, this information, in addition to Yoni’s discussion, should be left to draw its own conclusions. The question that I have not found the answer to, and that everyone should be asking, is: What does this history imply for abortion’s current application in our society? Can expanding abortion rights, as Yoni and Dorothy Roberts suggest, overcome the underlying issues of poverty and social justice that are so blatantly and disturbingly portrayed in Margaret Sanger and post-slavery federal sterilization clinics? The past and the present can’t be as bifurcated as we would like.
Although Yoni recognizes the statistics of the disproportionate number of abortions and clinics in black communities, he fails to ask why this is so before he concludes that the solutions involve more abortion and the relocation of clinics. Statistically, most women have abortions because they don’t have the social and economic resources to raise a child. What is the increased availability of abortion going to do to solve this problem? Further, is Planned Parenthood, a for-profit business, going to relocate or open new clinics to serve in neighborhoods where most women have the support to raise a child? These solutions only work to change the statistics, not solve the underlying problems.
In addition, I don’t think that Yoni should shy from his opinions on abortion and discrimination because he is a white male. To prohibit someone from having an educated, activist opinion on an issue because he may not have the same experiences as others involved is absurd. It affects us all. If there is something you can’t understand, keep questioning and keep learning.
Audrey Slayton
Former President, Students for Life
Class of 2003
Arts and Sciences
Sexual assault strikes a defensive chord
To the editor:
In his column, “Campus rape statistics are misleading” (Student Life, Nov. 1), Roman Goldstein charges that One In Four commits “slander,” that we are “criminalizing many men,” “pretending” to promote awareness for both men and women, “wrong,” “deceitful,” and “hypocritical.” These defamatory claims are based on misinterpretation of the law and confusion between legal outcomes and actuality. In short, Goldstein’s claims are wrong.
Goldstein does not understand Missouri law. He says the law states that “consent can be verbal or nonverbal.” Goldstein is wrong; legally, consent can only be verbal. He states that sexual assault laws require that “force be used.” Again, Goldstein is wrong, as the law clearly states that rape includes the “threat of force.” He also poorly understands how legal outcomes relate to reality. One need not be convicted a rapist by 12 jurors to be one, just as one need not be convicted a murderer by 12 jurors to be one. A jury’s decision does not always reflect reality. Goldstein claims that “a man in Missouri cannot be raped (by legal definition).” Again, he is wrong; a man can be raped by legal definition, as nonconsensual anal or oral penetration is rape.
I would like to apologize to the readership of Student Life for continuing to fill pages clarifying these issues and correcting false claims. We have taken up far more space than intended when we began our program and recognize this is at the detriment to other issues and groups on campus. In the future, if you have any questions, would like to see our sources or start dialog, please e-mail us at [email protected].
It is clear that these issues have struck a chord. It is also clear that a few men’s initial reaction is similar to Goldstein’s-that of defensiveness. I encourage people to examine why they feel defensive. Is it the troubling revelation that perhaps one in four women you know may be survivors of rape or attempted rape? Or is it the horrifying idea that the majority of college rapes are not stranger rapes in alleys, but can be the result of circumstances that we all find ourselves, or our friends, in weekly?
Rishi Rattan
Director, One In Four
Class of 2005
Arts and Sciences
Goldstein misunderstands research methodology
To the editor:
Roman Goldstein, in his column “Campus rape statistics are misleading” (Student Life, Nov. 1), claims that One In Four uses information that is “flawed, old and inaccurate.” This claim is based on a poor understanding of social science and psychology research methods.
He cites DOJ’s National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS), now largely accepted as substandard and employing outdated methods. Whether because of ignorance of the law, fears of being blamed or of not being believed, many survivors do not classify what happened to them as rape. However, NVAWS asked questions that used the label “rape,” resulting in an underestimate that only 1.7 percent women are rape survivors. What Goldstein also fails to recognize is that the NVAWS produced a per-year estimate. The National Institute of Justice/Bureau of Justice Statistics year 2000 study, using the best methodology available, extrapolated the result of a 5 percent incidence rate per year to an average college career which is between four and five years. Hence, this study confirmed the rate of “between one in four and one in five,” first reported by Dr. Koss in 1987. The bottom line: in social science, the answer is only as insightful as the question asked.
Goldstein shows a misunderstanding of broader research issues. He says that “75 percent of all rapes happen off college campuses.” Not only does he not define “off-campus” (does it include fraternity housing or university-owned apartments?), he does not say whether “all rapes” include survivors who were raped before or after college years. Unlike the NVAWS, the NIJ/BJS study conducted by Bonnie Fisher focused entirely on college women.
Goldstein misinterprets the result that “73 percent of rape victims said they were not raped.” Koss framed questions in descriptive behavioral terms that reflected the legal definitions of rape and sexual assault. Again, many survivors do not classify their rape as legally defined rape for reasons of psychological survival. Goldstein attempts to demonstrate the bias of Koss by stating that, “‘Rape’ for Koss included any sex play.” He failed to mention that Missouri law does as well-as sexual assault and attempted rape. Koss’ results, and Fisher’s in 2000, clearly stated that the result “one in four” included attempted rape and other kinds of sexual assault.
He also claims she is biased because she stated that rape represents “an extreme behavior that is on a continuum with normal male behavior.” Koss meant that rape is on a continuum and cannot be seen as a black-and-white matter. For example, when Goldstein implies that intimacy in a relationship that is “leading” to intercourse is inherently consensual unless someone “makes it clear” that they do not wish to have intercourse, he wrongly frames sexual intimacy into a black-and-white, linear progression.
Elliott Weiss
Trainer, One in Four
Class of 2005
Arts and Sciences