(Un)fortunately, it looks like we'll have LOTS of reading material for this class. Since I don't want this blog to simply be Your Daily Roundup of Gun Violence, I'll limit it to one. This guy, like the Sandy Hook shooter, had a fascination with serial killers and guns.
Does that mean that everyone with a fascination with serial killers and/or guns should be treated as a homicidal psycho? Of course not. The thing is, it's hard to profile mass shooters: they don't really fit the stereotype of sullen, antisocial loners. The kid responsible for Tuesday's middle school shooting in Roswell, NM was smart, popular, and well-liked. So was the kid at Arapahoe High School who killed Claire Esther Davis. Some "snap" and suddenly become violent, while others plan their attacks in great detail and even tell others about them ahead of time. It's that latter thing that's most relevant to our class:
We're currently addressing the question, "Should Lewis University have a policy to report potential threats?" We've interpreted it specifically in the context of a possible school shooter. (We kinda have a policy already, though it seems meant to apply to immediate threat and is drastic enough that step #1 is barring the suspect from campus.) Their answers should be interesting, and I'll share them here. This is part of an exercise in analyzing claims of fact, definition, evaluation, causation, and policy. (Ultimately their service projects will involve policy proposals.) Someone brought up the very good point that stricter gun laws will not solve the problem of guns falling into the wrong hands. Before I got to play Devil's Advocate, someone else beat me to it: even if these measures aren't 100% successful, at least we can make SOME progress and work harder to save more lives.
It's very true that laws do not prevent crime. (There's still crime.) But my own view is that sitting around doing nothing, not even trying, is unconscionable. There's plenty of compelling evidence that, when implemented and enforced correctly, gun laws work. (Remind me in a later post to talk about the myth of Chicago as the murder capital of the U.S. - it's not even in the top 5.)
Here is the argument from analogy in a nutshell: two things are similar, so they are caused by similar things and can be treated in similar ways.
Example: People die because of cars, knives, hammers, bathtubs, swimming pools, bleach, etc. Yet we don't make those things illegal, or require background checks for them, so we should not do this with guns either.
Counterexample: Violent crime is like drunk driving. We can and do have laws against it, educational awareness programs that work to prevent it, and we have made great progress in reducing the rates of drunk driving in the last 30 years. It still happens, but not nearly as much as it would if we took away the laws surrounding it.
There are some things that are clearly wrong and should be prevented at all costs. Like rape. Oh wait, not everyone agrees rape is always a crime! Take State Senator Richard Black (R-VA), for instance. He thinks spousal rape is hard to prosecute (which it can be), so it shouldn't be criminalized. “How on earth you could validly get a conviction of a husband-wife rape when they’re living together, sleeping in the same bed, she’s in a nightie, and so forth, there’s no injury, there’s no separation or anything.” So hell with it, let's just make it legal.
Sometimes even entire nations - Japan, for instance - think rape is ok in specific circumstances.
A somewhat-less-horrifying-but-still-disturbing example can be found closer to home: the Chicago Westin River North has decided that its employees should not be subject to an anti-sexual-harassment policy adopted by a conference that wanted to use it as their venue. I had a Facebook discussion that started out fine and then suddenly wasn't:
David (who I don't know) is doing a good job of being Devil's Advocate. He also resorts to a fallacy known as Godwin's Law, or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies. (See, not all arguments from analogy are sound - this is called False Analogy.) He thinks I've insulted him. That wasn't what I meant, but maybe I didn't make it clear enough that I was talking about the Westin, not him. I also made the mistake of commenting on the Elkhart news article in the first link above, and don't think I'll be posting screenshots of the replies, because URGH. Having a civil online debate is next to impossible even when your intentions are good.
So what do you think? Is the hotel effectively saying to its employees, "Go ahead and sexually harass people, it's ok," or are they simply maintaining a neutral position? Is it even possible to be neutral on a subject like sexual harassment/violence? Even if you could, why would you ever want to be?
Sexual violence is definitely a topic that most people tend to stray away from. Sexual harassment/violence are major problems in America and world-wide, and they need to be confronted. Since people tend to not look at sexual harassament as a serious deal people begin to think that it is tolerable. However, this is not the case. Sexual harassament and sexual violence need to be confronted. All of us need to be aware of these acts of violence and do what we can to stop them as we would any type of gun or other violence.
ReplyDeleteI always cringe whenever I read about someone being arrested or sent to jail and somebody says something like "I hope Bubba's his cellmate" or that he deserves to get raped in prison. Wishing that on someone is just barbaric and gross.
ReplyDeleteI think the hotel is completely condoning harassment by not accepting the anti harassment policy. I know in my owm experience that I could never take a neutral stance on sexual violence. There is never a time it is ok. I am a firm believer that no type of sexual violence is ever acceptable. There is never a neutral position on this topic. Either someone agrees with it, disagrees with it, or one of the two and hides it and calls it a neutral position.
ReplyDeleteI definitely do not think there is such thing as a neutral position when it comes to this topic. Sexual harassment/violence is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. Although, I would like to believe that all people are against sexual harassment/violence like I am, I know that is not the case. There are some individuals who think differently on the subject and they might plead the fifth to hide their opinion or stay "neutral" but personally, I don't think that's ever ok to do.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the hotel is encouraging their employees to sexually harass people, but the problem is that the hotel isn't saying don't do it. The fact that the hotel seems indifferent to its employees sexually harassing people, can be seen as them conning it. Sexual violence, like gun violence, has recently become more prominent in today's society. However people seem to be desensitized to the idea of sexual assault and treat it as a joke. Because of its prominence in today's society it's shouldn't be taken lightly.
ReplyDeleteI think that by the hotel being neutral they are not properly protecting the rights of the workers. People have a right to a safe work environment in which they do not feel threatened or at risk and the hotel is failing to provide this which is not right and needs to be corrected.
ReplyDeleteits sad to say, but in some sexual assault cases, the women that are attacked are blamed for the crime taking place. saying, "they asked for it," or "look at how they were dressed and acting, they wanted it." well actually, the definition of sexual assault is NOT wanting it. i think its horrible that people say that the victim of the crime "asked" for it. no one asks to be the victim of a violent crime, i think that point of view really needs to change.
ReplyDeleteI think people have to be neutral on the issue of sexual harassment. Though they might hold an opinion on the issue, and yet their employer is trying to appease everyone, I believe the best policy is to just keep my mouth shut and keep my job. In his day and age, jobs are hard to come by. I'm lucky enough that I can be floating between three jobs, but at the same time, I've learned to not stick my nose where it shouldn't go. I know that sitting back and not doing anything sounds bad, but if I am comfortable with my discussion, then so be it. Why should I put my self on someone else's level when I don't agree with something? Being true to yourself is what's important. I know that the hotel has many opinions they have to worry about, but they should worry about what works best for them.
ReplyDeleteSexual harassment happens everywhere now a days. What are you going to do when the same thing you want your job to protect you from happens on the street? Who are you going to say "I need help. I'm being sexual harassed" to? A police officer? They probably wouldn't do anything. It's not easy. I have experience with this, but that doesn't mean that I am always protected. I protect myself to feel safe, that's it.
The Hotel is not condoning sexual harassment, but they are not saying to stop it either. Sexual harassment is never ok in any situation, even if it is a spouse, it is never ok. It makes me wonder how many victims there are that have been sexually harassed or violated and have not told anyone because they don't think its considered sexual harassment ?
ReplyDeleteNot having a sexual harassment policy would open up the hotel to potential lawsuits if such a claim would be made when employees work. Based on the link I think this is a bad example to illustrate. the argument is essentially he said she said. Sides claim something the other said. The hotel did not ban the conference it was a decision that was agreed upon by both sides after some disagreement. Every work environment needs a harassment policy to protect not only their employees, but the business as well. in no way does this article say they don't want such a policy.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that we have a he-said-she-said situation...however, the hotel has not been forthcoming about exactly what the "disagreements" were that led to the con deciding to withdraw from the venue (no one is claiming they were banned).
ReplyDeleteI think the hotel is doing its best to maintain a neutral stance on sexual harassment. They are in no way condoning it. I believe it should be understood that sexual harassment is not allowed on the job. However, not adapting this policy may leave lines blurry and provide people leeway to be inappropriate on the job.
ReplyDeletei agree with savannah I think the hotel is doing a decent job being neutral and it should be understood that sexual harassment is wrong. However I think if it is not written in stone then people will have different claims of definition and try to use the policies, or lack of, against the hotel. also, however, the hotel should provide a safe environment for the workers and that can be where a policy would need to be inflicted.
ReplyDelete