Survey: Air Force Sex Assaults Widespread

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=716&e=6&u=/ap/20030829/ap_on_re_us/academy_investigation

WASHINGTON - Nearly one in five female Air Force Academy cadets said they had been sexually assaulted during their time at the academy, according to a survey underscoring the extent of the problem at the scandal-plagued school.

Although the results of the Defense Department survey are preliminary, Air Force and academy officials acknowledged the severity of the issues of culture and climate that led to the sex assault scandal.

"I've seen the numbers, and we have a problem," Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida, commandant of cadets, told a reporter after a stern address to 4,000 cadets at the academy near Colorado Springs.

In his speech, Weida acknowledged that misconduct had tarnished the academy's reputation and said: "If you think this problem has been blown out of proportion by the media, you are wrong."

more

[maxanne]

1. how many of these reports

must we read, before we decide to do something about it?

[NekoChris]

2. Sounds like..

..that guy is going to. He sounds PISSED.

[kayell]

3. Its all those dang heterosexuals in the military

[pansypoo53219]

4. yeah

they need some red-blooded gays!

[Pert_UK]

5. No, no, no.....Gay people can't swim, they attract enemy radar....

They always insist on sitting at the Captain's Table on board ship.....

:evilgrin:

Sorry, it's a joke from a spoof documentary called Brasseye. They do an expose of the military and a senior officer comes out with those lines.

The reporter says "Fair enough. But why couldn't they have told us that in the first place?"

[0007]

9. hilarious!

As long as the 'good O boys' club is in town ya can expect the fox to raid the hen house now and then with only
a little flap and no shot gun.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

55. Good one.

We need a "don't ask-don't rape" policy established.

[diamond14]

6. what our soldiers do to Iraqi women must be a real horror....there

is absolutely no discipline in our military under commander-in-chief shrub...as H.Thompson said "our military will never be great again"....

[Voltaire99]

7. WE'RE STILL #1! USA! USA!

No. 1 in raping our own cadets, that is.

Somebody tell Thomas Friedman so he has another bragging point for his column. Let's see the Arab hordes try to match us TV for TV, PC for PC, raped cadet for raped cadet!

[TAH6988]

10. Read the article

it doesn't say "rape," it says sexually assault. It goes on to say that sexual assualt is defined as "anything from unwanted touching..."

I'm willing to bet that many more than 20% of women at ANY university have been the subject of "unwanting touching."

[Spentastic]

11. That's alright then

It's just uppity women complaining about "unwanted touching".

[TAH6988]

12. Where did I say

it was alright? I just said it wasn't rape. Reading comprehension down due to lack of coffee this morning?

[Spentastic]

13. It's this afternoon here!

You're pyschic abilities being overwhelmed by your condescension gene?

So which part of

"Sexual assault was defined as anything from unwanted touching to rape."


Does not include rape bright spark?

"The survey also said that 11 percent of senior female cadets and 3 percent of freshman female cadets reported having been the victim of rape or attempted rape since enrolling at the academy. "

this bit?

[TAH6988]

14. Then you need to wake up

Nowhere did I say that "unwanted touching" was alright.

Secondly, you have no idea what "attempted rape" means on this survey.

Let's not make this sound as 20% of Academy women were raped.

[Spentastic]

15. WTF

"Secondly, you have no idea what "attempted rape" means on this survey."

Yes, I bet it means that they were asked out for a glass of wine and a trip to the cinema. What do you think it means?

So we'll say that 1 in 10 women in this instituion were raped or were fearful of imminent rape, another 1 in 10 were subject to other forms of sexual assault.

O.K? Which ever way you cut it, these figures are disgraceful and you sound like an apologist.

[TAH6988]

16. I'm a graduate

of USAFA.

And once again you are distorting the facts: Where does it say that
1 in 10 in the institution were raped or "fearful of imminent rape?"

It says that 11% of Seniors reported being raped or subjected to attempted rape (which could be forced kissing as far as you know, you have NO idea what a every single woman would perceive as "attmpted rape"), and 3% of freshman reported the same. There are a lot more freshman at USAFA than there are seniors (the Academy has a relatively high attrition rate), so your 10% figure was pulled out of the air.

Even a SINGLE rape or attempted rape is a disgrace to the Academy. I'll I'm saying is let's NOT blow this out of all sense of proportion.

[Spentastic]

17. Why am I not surprised?

Blow out of proportion? You are kidding?

You actually have a point though, my mistake on the stats. However

"109 of the 579 female cadets surveyed, or 18.8 percent, said they had been sexually assaulted in their time at the academy. Sexual assault was defined as anything from unwanted touching to rape."

18.8%? How much would you consider worthy of blowing out of proportion?

"you have NO idea what a every single woman would perceive as "attmpted rape"), "

Er? Why is this important. Do you have a different definition? If you ask a woman "has someone tried to rape you" and they say yes, are you going to give them your definition?

On edit

I'm actually really concerned about your responses to this topic. Surely the USAF has a duty of care to protect all of its cadets from anything from "unwanted touching" to rape. It seems that you believe that this study is the fault of the female respondents. Perhaps if male cadets treated their female peers with the respect they deserve these uncomfortable studies wouldn't keep showing up.

[TAH6988]

19. The majority

of that 19% could have been "unwanted touching" as opposed to rape. You don't know though, do you? My only point is that the thread to which I first responded made it sound that 19% of women at the Academy had been raped. That is not factually. We don't KNOW the percentage of the women there who have been raped. All we do know is that 19% have AT LEAST experienced unwanted touching. And, after all is said and done, that is still a much smaller percentage than at most US colleges and universities. Almost every woman I know has experienced some "unwanted touching" at some point in her life.

[Spentastic]

24. Jesus H Christ

No it couldn't

"The survey also said that 11 percent of senior female cadets and 3 percent of freshman female cadets reported having been the victim of rape or attempted rape since enrolling at the academy"

I very much doubt that women characterise "unwanted touching" as attempted rape.

"And, after all is said and done, that is still a much smaller percentage than at most US colleges and universities."

Provide your evidence. This of course is also wholly unacceptable.

"Almost every woman I know has experienced some "unwanted touching" at some point in her life."

That's because some men seem to feel entitled to a "stolen kiss"

[TAH6988]

26. How do you know what every

woman considers attempted rape? You don't.

Evidence? Here you go.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/vaw00/module4.html

And, yes, it is wholly unacceptable that some men feel the have a right to touch women whenever they want.

[Spentastic]

27. I don't! I never said and I never will!

Straw man me up.

"I doubt very much" is subjective. The evidence presented by you shows ambiguity in law but I don't see anywhere where a "stolen kiss" has been characterised as rape. What it does show is that women are marginalised by the Law and that a frightening proportion of men are arseholes

"In another survey of college males: 43% of college-aged men admitted to using coercive behavior to have sex, including ignoring a woman's protest, using physical aggression, and forcing intercourse. 15% acknowledged they had committed acquaintance rape; 11% acknowledged using physical restraints to force a woman to have sex. Women with a history of rape or attempted rape during adolescence were almost twice as likely to experience a sexual assault during college, and were three times as likely to be victimized by a husband. Sexual assault is reported by 33% to 46% of women who are being physically assaulted by their husbands"

Seems like it all needs "Blowing out of proportion" to me.

[TAH6988]

30. The overall problem

needs to be reported FACTUALLY and acted upon. Sensationalizing the problem does nothing to help fix it.

[Spentastic]

35. Brining things into the public domain

Often does help.

I think they've just changed the article. Was there not a line about the media not "making up" the problem?

[TAH6988]

36. Agree

that bringing things into the public domain is necessary and a good start; however, I would hope the media would report factually and not sensationalize their reporting.

[Spentastic]

37. O.K

Looks fairly reasonable reporting to me. Seems we may be crossing wires on anothers interpretation.

[TAH6988]

38. This is the headline the NYT

has on the issue: "Rate of Rape at Academy Is Put at 12% in Survey."

Does that seem like reasonable reporting? Or is it a blatant lie?

[Spentastic]

39. No that's a lie.

The link here is better.

[TAH6988]

21. Don't get me

wrong; it breaks my heart that even a single woman at USAFA would be a victim of any kind of assault, no matter the severity. I think the new Supt is just the guy to fix the problem. We need to immediately expel and prosecute ANY boy/man found guilty of such actions. No second chances.

[Dhalgren]

18. And let's not downplay

the effect the "unwanted touching" and "attempted rape" has on the victims of these assaults. If you say that because there is a spectrum of severity in what might be concidered "attempted rape" and therefore it is not as bad as the same number of "real" attempted rapes, I'd say that you have never had a rape attempted on you.

[TAH6988]

20. I don't know the severity

of the assults and neither do you. There is a vast difference between a drunken stolen kiss at a squadron party ("unwanted touching") amd a violent rape. Or are they the same to you?

[sendero]

22. any reasonable data...

... would be broken out by severity of assault. Unwanted touching is one thing, rape is quite another. Unwanted touching that stops when the touched indicates their discomfort is one thing, unwanted touching that continues is another.

It's easy to see there is a problem. Just how big a problem is impossible to see from data that includes everything from "slap in the face" to "murder" in the same category. What's up with that?

[Dhalgren]

23. They are not the same, no.

But why do you assume the least severe of the offenses? If a woman says that someone has attempted to rape her, why would you assume it might have been less than what she claimed? If my daughter or my sister, or my wife came to me and said some man had touched her in a way that she felt needed reporting, yeah, I'd want that man to suffer as severely as the law would allow. Men do not have an inalienable right to "unwanted touching" of women - even if the man happens to be married to the woman, much less if they are a casual acquaintence or classmate. How long do you think homosexual "attemted rapes" would go unnoticed? Would that just be the "victim's" overreaction? What about homosexual "unwanted touching"? Just not a severe enough "crime" to get all upset about? I realize that these arguments are extrapolations from your comments, but that is what is implied by your apparent "apologist" remarks.

[TAH6988]

25. I'm not apologizing for anything

I'm saying that not 19% of the women were raped - the actual percentage is FAR less than that. I'm not assuming the least severe, the facts don't tell us the actual numbers. All we do know is that 19% of the women have experienced AT LEAST unwanted touching. The attempts to make the problems at USAFA worse than they really are is troubling to me. As I've stated before, I'm appaled than even a single woman would fall victim to a fellow cadet (as it appears 86% of the women who reported incidents have) Let's not sensationalize the actual facts, though. There is a HUGE difference between rape and unwanted touching.

ALL assaults no matter how severe should be punished.

[sendero]

42. read whatever spin into it you want....

... it says more about you than about me.

Here is a simple fact. If you look at crime in general - what proportion of the crimes committed are petty vs. serious?

Is "unwanted touching" an offense if the toucher stops as soon as s/he is informed that it is "unwanted"?

If you don't think that applies here, well, what can I say.

Lumping all that data together is a way to go out of your way to not tell me much IMHO.

[TahitiNut]

31. If 3% of freshman and 11% of seniors ...

... report this, then it surely indicates that attrition isn't filtering out such behavior. Yes, the attrition rate at service academies is typically over 50%, and most of that attrition is earlier rather than later in the four-year cycle. (Preserving "investment" and all that.) It would be interesting to know whether the purported aggressors were upperclassmen, officers, or peers. (I seriously doubt a female cadet would be subjected to this by a subordinate in any significant number of cases.)

Assuming that some significant portion of the purported assaults were from upperclassmen, the mere advancement to senior should result in some signficant reduction of incidents. (We don't seem to know when during the class year these surveys were conducted.) That the 11% to 3% ratio doesn't indicate a reduction in the frequency of such incidents is sufficient to hypothesize that both the (purported) victims of such predation and the (purported) perpetrators are remaining in the academy at a possibly higher rate than those who don't. That's a disturbing conclusion and, IMHO, ought to be examined sociologically and systemically.

[TAH6988]

33. Sigh

Your hypothosis falls apart pretty quickly when one realizes that the freshmen have only been there one year, and the graduating seniors for four years (the report did say that the seniors surveyed were the recent graduating class according to the NYT). More years at an institution, greater chance of some form of assault. And the attrition rate is not over 50%.

[TahitiNut]

40. My oh my! Does your shit smell like roses to you?

How about dropping the 'tude, dude? :eyes: (How's the cow?)

Let's belabor the obvious for the clue-immune. "Freshmen" would have been at the academy for anywhere from less than a week to one year. "Seniors" would've been at the academy for anywhere from slightly more than 3 years to slightly less than 4 years.

Let's assume the surveys were performed at the end of the school year. The ratio of time spent at the academy would then be about 4::1. That a ratio of 11%::3% isn't significantly less than this ratio (and assuming that victims of such predation might be strongly inclined to leave) itself suggests that attrition doesn't reduce the number of such victims.

But we need to pay attention here. Assuming such assaults did occur, and assuming that such assaults are perpetrated, at least in significant part, by upperclassmen, then the ratio of perpetrators would be based on a rapidly diminishing population of upperclassmen.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, entering class sizes of 500, 400, 328, and 278, and a graduating class size of 250 ... which models a frontend-loaded overall attrition rate of 50% (20%, 18%, 15%, and 10% in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years respectively). Remember, attrition occurs all year long.

Seniors have (effectively) zero upperclassmen. Near the end of the school year, freshmen are outnumbered by upperclassmen by 2.14::1 (856 to 400), and sophomores are outnumbered by upperclassmen by 1.61::1 (528 to 328). Seniors are outnumbered by juniors, with a ratio of .90::1.

What does this mean? To see it, we need to assume (only for a moment) that all assaults are from upperclassmen. Since the freshmen report 3% (and assuming the rate of assault reflects a proportionate number of assaulters), attrition would imply a sophomore rate of assault at 2.25%, a junior rate of assault at 1.26%, and a senior rate of assault at 0%. This would result in seniors reporting an assault rate of 6.52% -- which is hugely lower than the reported rate of 11%.

(Note: Even if there were no attrition, the resulting 6% rate would be an even greater statistically significant difference from 11%. Yes, a 50% attrition rate actually increases the projected rate of assault. Try it.)

This leaves us with some choices of hypotheses.

1. We can hypothesize that almost all assaults are from classmates.
2. We can hypothesize some significant number of assaults are from underclassmen.
3. We can hypothesize that victims of assault are far more likely to remain at the academy.
4. We can hypothesize that perpetrators of assault are far more likely to remain at the academy.
5. We can hypothesize that female cadets become far more likely to be assaulted ("attractive"?) in their 2nd and 3rd years.

When I use Ockham's Razor, I am left with the more disturbing hypotheses as being the more likely. In order of liklihood I rank them #4, #3, #5, #1, and #2 -- with #4 significantly ahead of the rest.

This, IMHO, is very deserving of investigation. It strongly suggests that there's something systemic that embeds and rewards such propensities.


FWIW: You can compose your own objective model, using whatever numbers you deem fit. I used what I know as objectively as I could.

On edit: My estimate of attrition rates comes from my experience at the USCGA in the 60's. We had entering class sizes of 250 and graduating class sizes of 125. I notice that attrition rates have declined and vary from 20% to 35% in recent years at the several service academies.

[TAH6988]

44. Wow

Your assumptions are not even close.

First of all the NYT report said the survey was done at the END of the year.

Attrition DOES NOT occur all year long and it decreases DRAMATICALLY after the first two years. Why? Because the Academy requires a 3 year service commitment for all cadets who "attrit out" for ANY reason after the first day of class their junior year. That fact ALONE totally blows your conclusions out of the water.

From my own time at the Acadamy I can tell you that is it silly to assume that the majority of assaults are committed by upperclassmen. Just as many are committed by fellow classmates and even cadets who are junior to the women whom they assult.

[TahitiNut]

46. Read much?

Try again. If the attrition rate were zero, the cumulative rate of such reports would be even lower! When you say "just as many" you've already confirmed the hypotheses I've noted. (Reading comprehension seems to be even less of your strength than arithmetic?)

[TAH6988]

48. Wrong again

You think a "toucher" does it only once and stops??? If no one leaves, then the incidents of unwanted touching would rise! Women would have a GREATER chance of being exposed to an assualter, not a decreased one.

[TahitiNut]

52. It makes no difference, oh math-challenged one.

Unless you hypothesize a signficantly increasing rate of predation by (remaining) upperclassmen, the ratio of predators to prey would cancel out in the cumulative 'experience' of the prey.

Since that hypothesis is a subset of one I noted, it's effectively moot.

[TAH6988]

53. Are you sure you went to a service academy?

If you did, you'd know that it's much harder to sexually assault a freshman that it is ANY other class year. They are watched more carefully, can't leave the Academy grounds much, and are generally afforded greater protection than upperclass women. As women cycle through the squadrons each year, they come into GREATER contact with "predators." Even if I cut the number of predators in HALF, women will have a greater chance of encountering one the LONGER they remain at USAFA.

[TahitiNut]

56. You're not paying attention.

Perhaps you didn't in math class, either.

Let's assume no attrition and all predation being from upperclassmen to underclassmen. If freshmen (during their freshman year) have a 3% rate of assault with 3X upperclassmen (where 'X' is the class size), then sophomores (during their sophomore year) would have a 2% assault rate with 2X upperclassmen, juniors (during their junior year) would have a 1% assault rate with 1X upperclassmen, and seniors (during their senior year) would have a 0% assault rate with 0X upperclassmen.

That's a cumulative (year over year) assault rate of 6%. Just add 'em up! That doesn't even consider those who might be assaulted more than once, which would further reduce the number who'd report such assault!

All other factors dwarf into insignificance when one regards the reported cumulative rate of such assaults at 11% in the senior year as compared to a 3% rate in the freshman year. Every other claimed "windage" has offsetting "windage". Is the assaulted person more likely to stay or leave? (If they leave, they're not going to be around to report such an incident in their senior year. D'oh?!) When a 50% attrition rate increases the projected cumulative rate only to about 6.5%, any lesser attrition rate merely reduces the projected cumulatve rate.

My conclusion stands. The unacceptably high comparable rate of seniors reporting such incidents is a suggestion that the system is, in effect, amplifying such incidents over the four year term. This deserves investigation.

[TAH6988]

57. Sigh

YOU do not get it! Your PRIMARY assumption is WRONG. You assume that only upperclassmen assault underclassmen. You assume that since no senior women have upperclass males, they are NEVER assualted by ANY males and that juniors are only assaulted by seniors! That is patently illogical!

I will NOT assume that all "predation" is from upper to lower. It's not!

The fact remains that a senior woman is EXPOSED to more men than is a a freshman, a sophomore, or a junior. More men and more opportunities.

If you knew ANYTHING about the service Academies, you'd know that Freshmen women are limited WRT to number of males of any class with which they can come into contact. They can not leave their squadron areas in the evening for example; they are not allowed to have upperclassmen visit in their rooms. Freshmen women at USAFA normally only come into contact (outside the classroom) with the 100 or so men in their OWN squadron. Upperclass women come into contact with 10 score that many.

[TahitiNut]

59. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

All that matters for the puposes of the analysis is that any significant portion of such assaults are from upperclassmen.

If all such assaults were peer-to-peer, then a 3% to 11% cumulative "victimhood" would still indicate that predators weren't being significantly weeded out or deterred as they matriculated from one class to the next.

When I provided the "upperclassmen only" analysis, it stands proportionally no matter how much of the assaults are so characterizable. The 'assumption' is for arithmetic purposes only. If you assume it accountss for half of such assaults each year, then it's pertinent to a (possibly) 1.5% to 5.5% progression. If the proportion of upper-to-lower assualts actually decreases, then it raises a very disturbing question regarding the complimetnary peer-to-peer assault rates, which would then be on the increase!

Sheesh! Try reading with comprehension!

[TAH6988]

54. I'm done here

How about e-mailing me if you wish to continue this discussion.

[TahitiNut]

28. As a former cadet, you should probably know ...

... that "unwanted touching" is strictly prohibited behavior regardless of gender. Unless things have fundamentally changed since I was a cadet and later in the military, putting your hands on another cadet/soldier is strictly prohibited, particularly for officers. That such 'touching" would even be sufficiently personal that the cadet would be able to conceive of it as "sexual" speaks to a degree of violation that passes two boundaries: one of touching at all and the other of sexual predation.

It's my distinct impression that objectification of women is far more prevalent when (sub)cultures become more authoritarian and dogmatic. Such cultures seem to breed predation and exploitation of other people at all levels and all perversions.

[TAH6988]

29. If you are indeed a former cadet

then you would know that merely touching a fellow cadet is NOT stricly prohibited. Unwanted touching is, but there were NUMEROUS times when I was asked "Cadet X may I touch you?" for the purposes of removing a cable from my uniform or straightening a gig line. Also, did you forget the helping of a fellow classmate with his/her tuck?

Unwanted touching, especially that of a sexual nature, should be punished as severely as regulations and laws allow.

BTW, the rates of sexual assault at the Academy is far less than that of an average civilian university, so your "distinct impression" is 100% wrong. See one of my previous posts for the link.

[TahitiNut]

32. Yes, the mere fact that explicit permission is required ...

... for such touching (including the implicit permission in contact sports and personal defense courses) confirms the point I was making: that gender is a compounding issue.

You likened the academy to a civilian college or university. Such a comparison is invalid when it comes to touching, since military discipline imposes stricter prohibitions, even irrespective of gender, than mere civilian etiquette.


On edit: Your (seemingly) sneering condescension is uncalled-for and atagonistic, IMHO. I didn't challenge your claim of being a 'graduate of the USAFA' and common courtesy would suggest you grant the same "benefit of any doubt" to me.

[TAH6988]

34. "Stricter prohibtions"

Can you please tell me ANY civilian institution where "unwanted touching" is allowed?

BTW, MANY of my male and female classmates touched me without my expressed permission. Said touching was not "unwanted."

[TahitiNut]

41. Seek the aid of a logician.

As an attendee of both a service academy (USCGA) and three colleges, I know that casual physical contact (uninvited "touching") is enormously more common and acceptable at civilian schools. It's almost laughable that you'd try to run and hide under contrived strawman challenges. If, as an upperclassman at the academy, I observed another upperclassman (for example) casually putting his arm over the shoulders of an underclassman (irrespective of gender) or even patting him on the back, I'd feel obliged to warn him or possibly report him. It was demeritable conduct at the USCGA and the "honor system" would have obliged both me and he to report it. The difference between "unwanted" and "without permission" is very significant and (I assume) you know it.

[TAH6988]

47. Unlike you

I don't see something sinister in every touch. Touching was NOT demeritable conduct at USAFA. Touching was very common at the Academy, but I'm sure it won't be now. Most reasonable people know the difference between acceptable touching and unwnated touching, pity USCGA doesn't and a pity that USAFA will soon ban all touching between cadets.

[TahitiNut]

50. So, now you resort to a more blatant personal attack?

Nowhere have I indicated or even suggested that I "see something sinister in every touch"!!

That you'd resort to such a patently insulting and disruptive allegation is reprehensible, indicative of appalling intellectual dishonesty and hostility.

[TAH6988]

51. That's not a personal attack

You yourself said that if you saw a fellow upperclassman put his arm around another cadet or pat another cadet on the back, you would warn them against such behavior. Seems to me you are seeing something wrong with that behavior BEFORE you even ascertain the facts. To me, you are seeing something sinister in that action.

[smirkymonkey]

45. From what I have read of TAH's posts, He

frequntly engages in these "blame the woman" apologize for the suppossed aggressor type of rants. Occasionally, he will throw you off course a bit by stating how truly awful he thinks such things are, but his language belies his attempted compassion. To his defense, I am sure spending time in a military institution doesn't do much to sensitize one to these things, but the sentiment is clear. The woman is wrong, unless proven otherwise by a court of law.

[TAH6988]

49. Show me one instance

where I have "blamed the woman." If you can't, STFU, please

[treepig]

8. what are you? some kind of anti-american commie freak?

gotta support the troops you know!

or is it now OK to bring this type of thing up again? (the context being, i was roundly berated for doing so on this website a few months ago at the height of the 'gotta-support-the-troops' frenzy)

on edit, suppose i should get with the times, the heading probably should have read "anti-american terrorist-loving freak"

[DrWeird]

43. Support the troops!

They're groping for our freedom!

[tom_paine]

58. Just some good honest Freeper fun

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[TahitiNut]

60. GMTA

:eyes: