[TreesAndBirds]

In case anyone from the administration is reading this, how about...

“This area is dedicated to the right of all people to be free from sexual assault, and to honor those who work to make that right a reality”.

The last part is an effort in part to recognize the Swedish guys who rescued Emily Doe.

[TreesAndBirds]

In case anyone from the administration is reading this, how about...

“This area is dedicated to the right of all people to be free from sexual assault, and to honor those who work to make that right a reality”.

The last part is an effort in part to recognize the Swedish guys who rescued Emily Doe.

[needle]

FWIW, here's the context of the quote:

My sister picked me up, face wet from tears and contorted in anguish. Instinctively and immediately, I wanted to take away her pain. I smiled at her, I told her to look at me, I’m right here, I’m okay, everything’s okay, I’m right here. My hair is washed and clean, they gave me the strangest shampoo, calm down, and look at me. Look at these funny new sweatpants and sweatshirt, I look like a P.E. teacher, let’s go home, let’s eat something. She did not know that beneath my sweatsuit, I had scratches and bandages on my skin, my vagina was sore and had become a strange, dark color from all the prodding, my underwear was missing, and I felt too empty to continue to speak. That I was also afraid, that I was also devastated. That day we drove home and for hours in silence my younger sister held me. 

and

The night the news came out I sat my parents down and told them that I had been assaulted, to not look at the news because it’s upsetting, just know that I’m okay, I’m right here, and I’m okay. But halfway through telling them, my mom had to hold me because I could no longer stand up.

Anyway, the quote choice is still pretty baffling.

+++

Reading the letter again is a reminder that it's a powerfully-written document. She evokes the aftermath of rape in a plainspoken, heartrending way. With tremendous force and eloquence, she also rebuts any arguments (made in court or elsewhere) minimizing the actions and agency of a rapist.

I hope it is read again and again.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/he....gha3qY0a4

[needle]

FWIW, here's the context of the quote:

My sister picked me up, face wet from tears and contorted in anguish. Instinctively and immediately, I wanted to take away her pain. I smiled at her, I told her to look at me, I’m right here, I’m okay, everything’s okay, I’m right here. My hair is washed and clean, they gave me the strangest shampoo, calm down, and look at me. Look at these funny new sweatpants and sweatshirt, I look like a P.E. teacher, let’s go home, let’s eat something. She did not know that beneath my sweatsuit, I had scratches and bandages on my skin, my vagina was sore and had become a strange, dark color from all the prodding, my underwear was missing, and I felt too empty to continue to speak. That I was also afraid, that I was also devastated. That day we drove home and for hours in silence my younger sister held me. 

and

The night the news came out I sat my parents down and told them that I had been assaulted, to not look at the news because it’s upsetting, just know that I’m okay, I’m right here, and I’m okay. But halfway through telling them, my mom had to hold me because I could no longer stand up.

Anyway, the quote choice is still pretty baffling.

+++

Reading the letter again is a reminder that it's a powerfully-written document. She evokes the aftermath of rape in a plainspoken, heartrending way. With tremendous force and eloquence, she also rebuts any arguments (made in court or elsewhere) minimizing the actions and agency of a rapist.

I hope it is read again and again.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/he....gha3qY0a4

[81alum]

I am usually not a cynical person, but I imagine Stanford wanted to modify the location to help prevent it from becoming a pilgrimage point or a shrine against sexual assaults at universities.  This despite Dauber proposing it as a garden--a suggestion that must have been a welcome one at first.  As long as the dumpster remained there would be people seeking it out.  It might even become a rallying place for protests.  So their actions seem a little like the bulldozing of houses that were the scene of some horrendous crime. 

While Stanford may have been willing to put up some small, innocuous plaque,  they simply wanted the place to disappear into the manicured gardens, and I have to believe that the very eloquent Emily Doe instead supplied them with some choice words that would have had a Maya Lin effect.  So they lifted different words she wrote out of context to make them sound trite.

This is far from over.  I think the nation is ready for a monument to the suffering of women.  Few people thought the Vietnam memorial would be popular, but there was a need for a place to travel for catharsis.  As the Me Too movement explodes, people will look for a place to memorialize all the suffering and exploitation of past years.  It is not going to be Harvey Weinstein's office.  There has been no more powerful voice than Emily's, and I think Stanford has a rare opportunity to get on the right side of history and do something right.  Put her words at the site in just the way she asked.  Let the people come.  Be known as the place where the tide began to turn.

Sometimes I wonder how one of the greatest universities in world history survives its administration.

[81alum]

I am usually not a cynical person, but I imagine Stanford wanted to modify the location to help prevent it from becoming a pilgrimage point or a shrine against sexual assaults at universities.  This despite Dauber proposing it as a garden--a suggestion that must have been a welcome one at first.  As long as the dumpster remained there would be people seeking it out.  It might even become a rallying place for protests.  So their actions seem a little like the bulldozing of houses that were the scene of some horrendous crime. 

While Stanford may have been willing to put up some small, innocuous plaque,  they simply wanted the place to disappear into the manicured gardens, and I have to believe that the very eloquent Emily Doe instead supplied them with some choice words that would have had a Maya Lin effect.  So they lifted different words she wrote out of context to make them sound trite.

This is far from over.  I think the nation is ready for a monument to the suffering of women.  Few people thought the Vietnam memorial would be popular, but there was a need for a place to travel for catharsis.  As the Me Too movement explodes, people will look for a place to memorialize all the suffering and exploitation of past years.  It is not going to be Harvey Weinstein's office.  There has been no more powerful voice than Emily's, and I think Stanford has a rare opportunity to get on the right side of history and do something right.  Put her words at the site in just the way she asked.  Let the people come.  Be known as the place where the tide began to turn.

Sometimes I wonder how one of the greatest universities in world history survives its administration.

[needle]

From October, here's Dauber's reasoning for why that spot should be memorialized:

In Dauber’s view, a crucial element of the landmark is its context and location near the back door of the fraternity house, where many students walk as they enter parties similar to the one Turner and Doe attended in 2015.

Link (the full article is well worth reading): https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/10/04...r-assault/

I disagree with Dauber. There's a reason people still make rape jokes. In that location (despite a statement in the Daily article from Kappa Alpha supporting the park), I honestly believe that the temptation to be subversive, to act wildly inappropriate in the face of a danger/harm that's not readily understood, to be an immature and possibly drunk kid, would all contribute to a general lack of respect for such a memorial (in 2018, anyway).

If something like a memorial were to be placed in White Plaza or near the Quad, I think I could support that.

[needle]

From October, here's Dauber's reasoning for why that spot should be memorialized:

In Dauber’s view, a crucial element of the landmark is its context and location near the back door of the fraternity house, where many students walk as they enter parties similar to the one Turner and Doe attended in 2015.

Link (the full article is well worth reading): https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/10/04...r-assault/

I disagree with Dauber. There's a reason people still make rape jokes. In that location (despite a statement in the Daily article from Kappa Alpha supporting the park), I honestly believe that the temptation to be subversive, to act wildly inappropriate in the face of a danger/harm that's not readily understood, to be an immature and possibly drunk kid, would all contribute to a general lack of respect for such a memorial (in 2018, anyway).

If something like a memorial were to be placed in White Plaza or near the Quad, I think I could support that.

[TreesAndBirds]

More from the Daily. Not especially illuminating but university giving some explanation for why it didnt use Doe’s quotes, and provides two other quotes the university proposed. I think the university should get credit for creating the memorial space, and they may be getting bit unfairly criticized for the “Im Ok” quote given that it was only one of 3 they proposed, and the other two seem more reasonable, but the Im Ok quote is tone deaf and it is what people focused on.

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/01/31...ault-site/

[TreesAndBirds]

More from the Daily. Not especially illuminating but university giving some explanation for why it didnt use Doe’s quotes, and provides two other quotes the university proposed. I think the university should get credit for creating the memorial space, and they may be getting bit unfairly criticized for the “Im Ok” quote given that it was only one of 3 they proposed, and the other two seem more reasonable, but the Im Ok quote is tone deaf and it is what people focused on.

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/01/31...ault-site/

[teejers1]

No comment on the memorial.

One question on the recall: did Persky's sentence follow recommendation of whatever (court-affiliated?) agency/commission makes such sentencing recommendations? 

That may not matter to some/most, but I think it is a mitigating consideration. 

More generally, I think folks should try and be consistent on whether or not they support enforcement of such "guidelines" or prefer to give the judge wide discretion to sentence on a case-by-case basis.  If you favor the latter (which I do), then it's incumbent on you to at least try and recognize that with that approach, you'll get bad sentencing decisions. 

Of course, if you favor discretion, then it's also arguably consistent that recall is more appropriate for decisions beyond the pale (if you favor following sentencing guidelines and a judge does that, then you really shouldn't be able to base a recall on such decisions . . . at least from an intellectually consistent vantage point).

Recalls, like proposition ballots, are not a very good way to make policy.  But alas, that's the world we live in . . . at least in California.

There, do you think I sufficiently violated the "no political discussions" prohibition on this board?  What the heck.  Call it a tribute to Garvin.

[teejers1]

No comment on the memorial.

One question on the recall: did Persky's sentence follow recommendation of whatever (court-affiliated?) agency/commission makes such sentencing recommendations? 

That may not matter to some/most, but I think it is a mitigating consideration. 

More generally, I think folks should try and be consistent on whether or not they support enforcement of such "guidelines" or prefer to give the judge wide discretion to sentence on a case-by-case basis.  If you favor the latter (which I do), then it's incumbent on you to at least try and recognize that with that approach, you'll get bad sentencing decisions. 

Of course, if you favor discretion, then it's also arguably consistent that recall is more appropriate for decisions beyond the pale (if you favor following sentencing guidelines and a judge does that, then you really shouldn't be able to base a recall on such decisions . . . at least from an intellectually consistent vantage point).

Recalls, like proposition ballots, are not a very good way to make policy.  But alas, that's the world we live in . . . at least in California.

There, do you think I sufficiently violated the "no political discussions" prohibition on this board?  What the heck.  Call it a tribute to Garvin.

[oldalum]

I believe the sentence did follow the sentencing recommendation of the probation officer assigned to the case. I do not know if it followed any applicable sentencing guidelines. I remember a criminal defense attorney in Oakland commenting that none of his young minority not-in-college clients get the benefit of such a lenient sentence.

[oldalum]

I believe the sentence did follow the sentencing recommendation of the probation officer assigned to the case. I do not know if it followed any applicable sentencing guidelines. I remember a criminal defense attorney in Oakland commenting that none of his young minority not-in-college clients get the benefit of such a lenient sentence.

[pefloresjr]

No comment on the memorial.

One question on the recall: did Persky's sentence follow recommendation of whatever (court-affiliated?) agency/commission makes such sentencing recommendations? 

That may not matter to some/most, but I think it is a mitigating consideration. 

More generally, I think folks should try and be consistent on whether or not they support enforcement of such "guidelines" or prefer to give the judge wide discretion to sentence on a case-by-case basis.  If you favor the latter (which I do), then it's incumbent on you to at least try and recognize that with that approach, you'll get bad sentencing decisions. 

Of course, if you favor discretion, then it's also arguably consistent that recall is more appropriate for decisions beyond the pale (if you favor following sentencing guidelines and a judge does that, then you really shouldn't be able to base a recall on such decisions . . . at least from an intellectually consistent vantage point).

Recalls, like proposition ballots, are not a very good way to make policy.  But alas, that's the world we live in . . . at least in California.

There, do you think I sufficiently violated the "no political discussions" prohibition on this board?  What the heck.  Call it a tribute to Garvin.

Currently, California generally follows the model of allowing judges wide discretion in sentencing decisions.  There is an ongoing push/pull between allowing greater discretion when strict guidelines create a feeling of injustice and creating strict guidelines when discretionary decisions create the same feeling.  Judge Persky had a wide range of discretion in choosing the sentence.  From no time in jail with basic felony probation to the maximum 14 years in prison.  (Max of 9 years for digital penetration of an unconscious/intoxicated victim; 6 years for assault with intent to commit a sex crime.)  There is a pretty comprehensive list of aggravating and mitigating factors that the court must consider.  The DA's office was asking for 6 years in prison.  The probation department recommended a middle term in county jail.  The max in county jail is one year, so the middle term is six months.  The judge does not have to follow the probation report, it is only a recommendation and judges regularly impose a different sentence. 

I agree with the idea that if we are to allow discretion, we have to accept that we will not agree with some sentences.  There can be no individualized stronger punishment for those without remorse who commit crimes with no justification and there can be no mercy for those who commit crimes but have remorse and justifications that don't amount to legal defenses.  If a judge is too outside the community view of justice, the judge can be voted out.  Although it is rare, it is built into the system. 

I don't work in Santa Clara County very often but my contacts in the DA's office report that Judge Persky basically always followed the recommendation of the probation department.  In my opinion, that is a sign of a judge who is weak and is not properly exercising his discretionary powers.  It is not possible for a judge to be exercising discretion and agreeing with all the different probation officer's reports that come in on each individual defendant and case.  I don't have a vote in the recall and am generally against recalling a judge over one decision because the independence of the judiciary is important.  However, the community standards are also important so the voters will decide if Judge Persky is too outside the norm. 

Somebody else thought that Turner's appeal was risk free.  It is not.  If he is granted a new trial and convicted, the judge who presides over that trial (even if it was Judge Persky) would have complete discretion to impose up to the full 14 years in prison.  I've only very rarely seen a defendant count his blessings and not seek to have his conviction overturned.  At least through the first appeal which is paid for by the state if you are sent to prison. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

No comment on the memorial.

One question on the recall: did Persky's sentence follow recommendation of whatever (court-affiliated?) agency/commission makes such sentencing recommendations? 

That may not matter to some/most, but I think it is a mitigating consideration. 

More generally, I think folks should try and be consistent on whether or not they support enforcement of such "guidelines" or prefer to give the judge wide discretion to sentence on a case-by-case basis.  If you favor the latter (which I do), then it's incumbent on you to at least try and recognize that with that approach, you'll get bad sentencing decisions. 

Of course, if you favor discretion, then it's also arguably consistent that recall is more appropriate for decisions beyond the pale (if you favor following sentencing guidelines and a judge does that, then you really shouldn't be able to base a recall on such decisions . . . at least from an intellectually consistent vantage point).

Recalls, like proposition ballots, are not a very good way to make policy.  But alas, that's the world we live in . . . at least in California.

There, do you think I sufficiently violated the "no political discussions" prohibition on this board?  What the heck.  Call it a tribute to Garvin.

Currently, California generally follows the model of allowing judges wide discretion in sentencing decisions.  There is an ongoing push/pull between allowing greater discretion when strict guidelines create a feeling of injustice and creating strict guidelines when discretionary decisions create the same feeling.  Judge Persky had a wide range of discretion in choosing the sentence.  From no time in jail with basic felony probation to the maximum 14 years in prison.  (Max of 9 years for digital penetration of an unconscious/intoxicated victim; 6 years for assault with intent to commit a sex crime.)  There is a pretty comprehensive list of aggravating and mitigating factors that the court must consider.  The DA's office was asking for 6 years in prison.  The probation department recommended a middle term in county jail.  The max in county jail is one year, so the middle term is six months.  The judge does not have to follow the probation report, it is only a recommendation and judges regularly impose a different sentence. 

I agree with the idea that if we are to allow discretion, we have to accept that we will not agree with some sentences.  There can be no individualized stronger punishment for those without remorse who commit crimes with no justification and there can be no mercy for those who commit crimes but have remorse and justifications that don't amount to legal defenses.  If a judge is too outside the community view of justice, the judge can be voted out.  Although it is rare, it is built into the system. 

I don't work in Santa Clara County very often but my contacts in the DA's office report that Judge Persky basically always followed the recommendation of the probation department.  In my opinion, that is a sign of a judge who is weak and is not properly exercising his discretionary powers.  It is not possible for a judge to be exercising discretion and agreeing with all the different probation officer's reports that come in on each individual defendant and case.  I don't have a vote in the recall and am generally against recalling a judge over one decision because the independence of the judiciary is important.  However, the community standards are also important so the voters will decide if Judge Persky is too outside the norm. 

Somebody else thought that Turner's appeal was risk free.  It is not.  If he is granted a new trial and convicted, the judge who presides over that trial (even if it was Judge Persky) would have complete discretion to impose up to the full 14 years in prison.  I've only very rarely seen a defendant count his blessings and not seek to have his conviction overturned.  At least through the first appeal which is paid for by the state if you are sent to prison. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

[fullmetal]

There is a concern, as needle points out, that the memorial is now perhaps a target for immature/spiteful acts.  But a reminder in proximity to a fraternity house is a powerful statement.  I'm not sure I've got a fully-developed opinion on this anymore, but the quote is still jarringly weird.

[fullmetal]

There is a concern, as needle points out, that the memorial is now perhaps a target for immature/spiteful acts.  But a reminder in proximity to a fraternity house is a powerful statement.  I'm not sure I've got a fully-developed opinion on this anymore, but the quote is still jarringly weird.

[2006alum]

There is a concern, as needle points out, that the memorial is now perhaps a target for immature/spiteful acts.  But a reminder in proximity to a fraternity house is a powerful statement.  I'm not sure I've got a fully-developed opinion on this anymore, but the quote is still jarringly weird.

Make the area visibly lit at night (one of the problems with the dumpster area to begin with) and stick a cctv camera there and make it visible. Any student stupid enough to vandalize it is moral dead weight taking up a valuable spot at our Alma Mater and could swiftly be made to make room for someone who'll put their time at the Farm to good use.

[2006alum]

There is a concern, as needle points out, that the memorial is now perhaps a target for immature/spiteful acts.  But a reminder in proximity to a fraternity house is a powerful statement.  I'm not sure I've got a fully-developed opinion on this anymore, but the quote is still jarringly weird.

Make the area visibly lit at night (one of the problems with the dumpster area to begin with) and stick a cctv camera there and make it visible. Any student stupid enough to vandalize it is moral dead weight taking up a valuable spot at our Alma Mater and could swiftly be made to make room for someone who'll put their time at the Farm to good use.

[fullmetal]

Oh for sure.  But the university will have to defend that location for all time given the eternal immaturity of college students.  And there's no guarantee that dumb kids from outside the university (ahem kal) won't drive onto campus to paint it blue and gold. 

Totally agreed with the sentiment of its establishment though.  American culture, when it comes to colleges and Greek life, must change sooner rather than later.

[fullmetal]

Oh for sure.  But the university will have to defend that location for all time given the eternal immaturity of college students.  And there's no guarantee that dumb kids from outside the university (ahem kal) won't drive onto campus to paint it blue and gold. 

Totally agreed with the sentiment of its establishment though.  American culture, when it comes to colleges and Greek life, must change sooner rather than later.

[2006alum]

Oh for sure.  But the university will have to defend that location for all time given the eternal immaturity of college students.  And there's no guarantee that dumb kids from outside the university (ahem kal) won't drive onto campus to paint it blue and gold. 

Totally agreed with the sentiment of its establishment though.  American culture, when it comes to colleges and Greek life, must change sooner rather than later.

I would be surprised if college students would do that with bright lights and a visible CCTV camera. I think the sentiment among most college students these days is much more #metoo than folks even ten years older. I was a brobdingnagian prankster in college and pulled off a couple of campus-wide pranks, and even 20-year-old me would never want to do something that stupid and profane. Also, if it showed up blue and gold, it'd be pretty easy to send the recording to Cal slash post it publicly and ask for anyone to ID the perps. Given how quickly the Charlottesville marchers were ID'd via twitter (and a number were then fired from their jobs), I think the culture around this stuff is changing really fast.

[2006alum]

Oh for sure.  But the university will have to defend that location for all time given the eternal immaturity of college students.  And there's no guarantee that dumb kids from outside the university (ahem kal) won't drive onto campus to paint it blue and gold. 

Totally agreed with the sentiment of its establishment though.  American culture, when it comes to colleges and Greek life, must change sooner rather than later.

I would be surprised if college students would do that with bright lights and a visible CCTV camera. I think the sentiment among most college students these days is much more #metoo than folks even ten years older. I was a brobdingnagian prankster in college and pulled off a couple of campus-wide pranks, and even 20-year-old me would never want to do something that stupid and profane. Also, if it showed up blue and gold, it'd be pretty easy to send the recording to Cal slash post it publicly and ask for anyone to ID the perps. Given how quickly the Charlottesville marchers were ID'd via twitter (and a number were then fired from their jobs), I think the culture around this stuff is changing really fast.

[BostonCard]

Probably true, but I was around when the gay liberation statue was vandalized.  I would like to think that would be unthinkable now, but even back then I would have liked to think it wouldn't happen at Stanford.

BC

[BostonCard]

Probably true, but I was around when the gay liberation statue was vandalized.  I would like to think that would be unthinkable now, but even back then I would have liked to think it wouldn't happen at Stanford.

BC