I'm on the Title IX disciplinary panel here
That sounds like a good approximation of hell. Did you get caught keying the Dean's car or something?
TOLSTOY WAS AMBIGUOUS IN ONLY ONE WAY.
What's the goal here? Maximizing aid to the students? Minimizing your effort? Playing with the lives of others for the sheet enjoyment of it, like they are toys in a sandbox?
What is the role of Title IX meddling if the individuals are just progressing through a developmental stage, and this is how people learn and grow?
I guess I would say, in many cases, it may be exactly this developmental stage where they will not be amenable to useful advice and they just need to go through. But sometimes they may be in a place where that assistance is exactly what they need to advance as people. So why not offer it in hope?
At the same time, if we're considering this as being paternalistic by design, well, a lot of bad behavior just naturally works itself out. A lot of people can say "my first real relationship was absolutely awful. I worked on my shit and matured and got together with other people who I don't fight with like that." What is the role of Title IX meddling if the individuals are just progressing through a developmental stage, and this is how people learn and grow?
In a very general sense I suppose it's to make that developmental stage shorter and smoother. For people whose course of future relationships are teetering on the edge of a downward spiral, it could give them a helpful nudge in the correct direction. Also, "absolutely awful" is vague. My first two real relationships were absolutely awful in some senses, but not in a mutually abusive sense, unless you define it very broadly. Is it possible to say that that kind of thing is qualitatively different from insecurity, immaturity, etc.?
That sounds like a good approximation of hell.
I don't actually hate it! In general, I like committees with a clearly defined task which is important, and disciplinary panel falls into that category. It's important to take it seriously, and it doesn't mush into waxing on endlessly about mushy ideals.
The worst possible committee, in my opinion, is something like the Environmental Sustainability Committee, where you sit there and come up with dumb, unworkable, expensive ways to make Heebie U greener, and then you decide to have some PSA campaigns, and then you maybe discuss how you could piggyback on other activities on campus and make them greener, and everything sounds like a giant PITA with no budget and no time carved out for any of these good deeds.
Is it possible to say that that kind of thing is qualitatively different from insecurity, immaturity, etc.?
I'm very interested to know if this is the case. I assume that students from abusive backgrounds would have awful first relationships that are awful in a different way from the kind of awful that Cyrus's early relationships were. But those must be two ends of the spectrum? Or maybe there's some real distinguishing mark?
Maybe the important part of your intervention is to expose norms and provide a signpost for reality. You intervene so that everyone involved knows that aspiring to a relationship without those elements is normal and reasonable -- sure, it's mutual now, but if you ever get trapped in it or it becomes one-sided, they'll know it's wrong. You're basically helping them build resistance to gaslighting about "all relationships X", so they don't accept X as normal just because it's happened to them (or they've engaged in it) over their few relationships.
Do attitudes like that, and their ability to predict behavior, remain pretty stable over a person's lifetime? Across several studies, I have found consistent evidence for a group of young men who perpetrate the type of sexual violence described in these allegations, but only at a relatively young age -- about 14 to 20 years old. These men then stop perpetrating altogether either before or shortly after they begin college. This is part of a more general trend researchers have identified regarding adolescent antisocial behavior that disappears once an individual reaches adulthood. Based on my research, 70% to 75% of young men who perpetrated sexual violence only do so during a relatively limited time frame. Very few of the men who commit sexual violence are serial offenders, so I was not surprised by the idea that these behaviors were limited to adolescence.
Kind of a relief, actually!
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ford-testimony-credibility-memory-20180928-story.html
9: I mean, he's a researcher, so I guess we should assume he is adjusting in some way for people being more willing to self-report crimes committed as minors. That last sentence in the blockquote is ouroborian.
9: Did he look into if they go on to commit perjury?
In a very general sense I suppose it's to make that developmental stage shorter and smoother.
Yeah, this. In practice, I don't think anything that could possibly have come onto a Title IX radar happened between me and BOGF while I was still at college*, but in theory, an outsider saying "your shit is fucked up" might have moved things along a lot faster. That stupid relationship lasted 6+ years, and while it arguably should have ended after just a few months, it inarguably was broken and pointless and occasionally abusive after about 4 (the summer of '97 was good; after that, good times were few and far between).
But it was one of those things where all of our friends and family thought it was a stupid relationship, but no one stepped up to say so. And that's where your panel could, conceivably, play a helpful role.
*she graduated later, as she worked her way through. But after I graduated, we lived in non-college apts, and mostly stopped spending time with undergrads
Thinking about your categories, I think that the more clear-cut the fucked-upedness is, the less it's a developmental stage, and the more it's bad news on both ends.
That is, my situation was one where there was never a really healthy relationship, but the first ~2 years was 100% developmental stage, and honestly did me some real good (not that the same good couldn't have happened in a better relationship). But as it slid from not-healthy to unhealthy to broken, I wasn't gaining anything, and neither was she.
Point being, by the time outside observers can see anything remotely Title IX-adjacent, the progress and development have ceased. Sometimes that's after 2 weeks, sometimes it's after 2 years. But I don't think you'll very often be meddling in basically healthy relationships.
That's true - nothing I've seen has been anything remotely healthy.
Whenever I hear "healthy" in the context of relationships, I think of the Simpsons episode where they all electroshock each other.
14: And once you're in that category, every tiny impetus in the direction of ending things is a mitzvah. It's true that people in bad relationships will react defensively to outsiders telling them they're fucked, but that's a stupid excuse for saying nothing.
I mean, you should take that into account when planning tactics, but not strategy.
Is there a list of criteria to identify whether relationships are healthy, possibly specialized to romantic, friend, family?
What fraction of relationships are OK ?