Support NeoGAF

[Emperor_Uriel]

The first girl in our class to develop visible breasts got them in 4th grade.

The boys in 4th grade made a game out of trying to pinch them. Not just grab them, not just snap her bra strap, which she suffered a lot from. To actually hurt them.

The boys only got an eye roll and a tired "Stop that" from the teachers.

This is, of course, totally unacceptable. Those kids should have faced a superintendent's conference and been required to take courses designed to correct their behavior. However, they should not be faced with criminal charges.

This is, again, why I constantly advocate for teaching kindergartners about consent and the "bathing suit rule," and reteaching those topics throughout elementary school. We need kids to have knowledge on what touches are right and wrong very early, for their own safety and that of their classmates.

I'm mostly concerned about how these laws could get stretched over time, as they have for male teachers, where today even the mere allegations or appearance of impropriety can lead to a sunken career and a criminal investigation. What started as common sense policy (don't have sex with or molest your students) has morphed into legitimized profiling that distracts from the real threats.

 

[Ala Alba]

That's why a young kid doing sexual assault/acts should raise red flags.

Of course it doesn't require knowing about sex, but in the vast majority of cases, if a kid under ten or so is committing sexual acts on fellow students, especially violent ones, they are having it done to them. Doing it to someone else makes them. Feel less helpless and more in control, and if they are not rescued asap, they could become adult abusers themselves.

Except not all "sexual violence" is abusive in the context that a child might see it at home. In fact, the law defines sexual violence as:

(b) For purposes of this chapter, “sexual violence” means physical sexual acts perpetrated against a person without the person’s consent.

There are many consensual physical sexual acts that a child might be exposed to at home that should not raise red flags, but would be considered sexual violence if the child attempts to force this behavior on others (because children aren't always good at taking "no" for an answer).

Case in point:

And yes, even kindergartners can sexually harass, whether that's their intent or not. Most of my kindergarten recesses on the playground involved me running/hiding from a boy that constantly tried to chase me and kiss me. I absolutely would not have wanted him to get slapped with what this law would propose, but it's still something that needs t be taken seriously. Women are taught from a young age that what we experience as harassment isn't a big deal for xyz reasons. Or even worse, that the harassment we experience is "cute" because of the ages of those involved.

And that's not even getting into media.

A child attempting to imitate the acts with an unwilling person is not necessarily a sign of abuse.

I mean, the law seems well-meaning, but there are already issues with the university-level implementation of it, so I'm not too enthusiastic about extending it to historically "no tolerance" schools.

 

[Zaphrynn]

Except not all "sexual violence" is abusive in the context that a child might see it at home. In fact, the law defines sexual violence as:



There are many consensual physical sexual acts that a child might be exposed to at home that should not raise red flags, but would be considered sexual violence if the child attempts to force this behavior on others (because children aren't always good at taking "no" for an answer).

Case in point:



And that's not even getting into media.

A child attempting to imitate the acts with an unwilling person is not necessarily a sign of abuse.

I mean, the law seems well-meaning, but there are already issues with the university-level implementation of it, so I'm not too enthusiastic about extending it to historically "no tolerance" schools.

I'm not even sure the point you're trying to make in response to us. We are saying that certain acts CAN raise red flags, and that it is important to think about what those behaviors may say about the child's home life. We are saying that punishing elementary-age children for sexual assault is not the way to go, and that by punishing these children, the school could be punishing a kid who is already dealing with horrible shit at home. We are talking about a potentially harmful affect this could have on children who suffer abuse. Of course not EVERY case of a child forcing kisses on someone, or touching someone inappropriately means they've been sexually abused. But it is considered a warning sign for educators. This law could contribute to the abuse these specific children already are dealing with.

Notice the use of "can", "could" etc.

 

[StoOgE]

I think this is a tricky situation to apply to elementary school kids who may not fully understand what is happening, but I generally think the standards at Junior High and High School are fine. Sexual assault is not as prevalent as it is on college campuses, but it's still problematic.

That said, the authors problem seems to be that laws are disproportionately enforced against African Americans, which is true and is a huge issue. But I'm not sure it's a good argument against passing new laws. It feels like there is a much larger societal issue that needs solving.

 

[inner-G]

Usually around 20-30% of students in middle school will report experiencing physical or verbal sexual harassment. At least 1 in 5 will report being touched inappropriately.

https://www.usnews.com/news/article...assment-frequent-among-middle-school-students

http://www.aera.net/Newsroom/Recent...iolence-Experiences-Among-Middle-School-Youth

Homeschooling - not as crazy as i thought

 

[emag]

This is, of course, totally unacceptable. Those kids should have faced a superintendent's conference and been required to take courses designed to correct their behavior. However, they should not be faced with criminal charges.

As noted earlier in this thread, the bill has nothing to do with criminal charges for kids. It's about getting schools to do more to protect vulnerable kids than just brush this behavior under the rug.

 

[iamblades]

I think this is a tricky situation to apply to elementary school kids who may not fully understand what is happening, but I generally think the standards at Junior High and High School are fine. Sexual assault is not as prevalent as it is on college campuses, but it's still problematic.

That said, the authors problem seems to be that laws are disproportionately enforced against African Americans, which is true and is a huge issue. But I'm not sure it's a good argument against passing new laws. It feels like there is a much larger societal issue that needs solving.

When the purpose of the law is to lower the burden of proof and strip away due process rights? That damn sure sounds like as good an argument against new laws as anything I've ever heard.

We have laws against all this behavior already, we don't need schools setting up kangaroo courts that will inevitably unjustly ruin many peoples lives. If our actual courts get things so horribly wrong, how are things going to look when you get rid of due process and the burden of proof. We are just now eliminating hacks peddling bite marks as legitimate science from the actual courts, god knows what standard of evidence will exist in these administrative hearings.

If you can't prove mens rea in a criminal court, maybe the accused actually doesn't need to be punished, rather than you just needing to lower the standards a bit further until you can exact some punishment.

I'd say it doesn't matter because this has no chance of holding up in court, except the supreme court has been fairly terrible in protecting the constitutional rights of students over the years.