This article has been written by Daksh Kadian (Batch of 2021). The cover picture is originally from NPR.
Trigger Warning: Mentions of sexual assault.
It has been one month since I completed four years at the University. One thing I remember from my initial days is that alcohol was told to be the sine qua non of Law School life. I was told that my chances of getting through NLS without alcohol were bleak. However, my single kidney has been stronger than Law School influence. I just feel sad for the kidney to start with – when I was 10, the only pressure that this lone kidney felt was that of supporting a 6-foot body without a partner kidney. Never did the kidney imagine that 8 years down the line it would be bestowed with the task of endlessly fending off the societal pressure of drinking. Don’t worry, this piece is not about my journey coping with the Nashe, Liquor and Spirit (“NLS”) culture. It is more or less a Megha Mehta™ summary about and subsequent localisation of something I read during the lockdown, namely, a chapter titled ‘The Fraternity Part’ in Talking to Strangers by Malcolm Gladwell.
The reason I chose to write for the first time for Quirk is that 40 pages of that book resolved my long-standing doubts regarding the relationship between campus drinking culture, sexual assaults, and quad parties. Some of you may choose to stop reading here. Why should you read about this from someone who has never tasted alcohol? Fair, but, let me tell you that my friends have been gracious enough to pass on their expanse of knowledge to me (not thankful!), which, I have studied with some rigour. I kid you not, my father is convinced that I am a raging alcoholic and my sister has proposed that I undergo medical tests as soon as possible to prove my teetotaler status. With this, I prove my locus and hope to have fulfilled the quirky threshold requirement to be featured on this blog.
Now, I will urge you to seriously read the remaining portion because it might help us improve as a community. Everyone is aware that NLS has had a fair share of sexual assaults fuelled by campus drinking at quad parties. For the longest time I did not understand two things: first, the real cause of such acts of sexual misconduct and; second, the standard for consent when alcohol was involved. I have spent a good amount of time pondering over these questions, but it was all in vain. I was able to draw clear linkages only when I read the aforementioned chapter in Malcolm Gladwell’s book talking about a ‘Fraternity Party’ at Stanford University which sounded very similar to our very own NYP.
My only hope is that by the end of this piece you won’t be plagued by these questions. The purpose of this piece is to show that each and every Law Schoolite, present and past, is culpable for each and every act of sexual misconduct that has happened under the influence of alcohol on campus.
Let me start with some yes or no questions (the answers to which you have the full right to disagree with):
- Is intoxication the sole cause behind sexual assaults in parties? No.
- Is the lack of respect that a person holds towards women the sole factor behind sexual assaults? No.
- Are the other people present in the party responsible for not having taken steps to prevent the assault? No.
You may be confused now, and wondering what it is that I’m trying to say. Who is really causing the assault then? Why did I make this tall claim of every Law Schoolite being responsible? Am I saying that there can never be consent when there is alcohol? You will have stick with me till the end to find the answers *sick move*.
Discovering causation
Alcohol cannot be the sole factor leading to sexual assault. Interestingly, an indigenous group, Camba, in Bolivia drinks laboratory grade alcohol in groups. The Cambas have a solitary lifestyle except for on the weekends. They party every weekend, from Saturday evening to Monday morning. They pass out, regain consciousness, drink more alcohol, and pass out again in this time period. You’d expect that such a lonely life, when combined with highly potent alcohol, would lead to sexual activity on the weekends. However, there are NO instances of harmful sexual conduct. Why? Again, you will have to wait for the answer.
What exactly is driving the trend of sexual assault in NLS then? Is it the lack of understanding of informed consent? Or is it the character of the person responsible for such assaults? In the context of Law School, I will answer both these question in the negative. In my opinion, we are sufficiently made aware of what constitutes consent. Some may suggest that there is an understanding deficit given the absence of sex education in schools, and that navigating consent in a liberal space like our campus can be tricky. However, I do not endorse this view because I believe that Prof. Elizabeth’s session in the first year, substantive criminal law classes in the second year, and general discussions on campus are sufficient to equip us. Further, I also refuse to fully support the character theory, because I have observed that those accused of grave sexual misconduct have also been extremely aware and respectful in other instances, including when they were in an inebriated state. Thus, I do not believe that character can be the sole cause for inappropriate conduct as for some perpetrators, such behaviour is not repetitive. This does not mean that only repeat offenders are liable for their actions, I simply want to illustrate reasons in addition to character that contribute to sexual assault.
Now, let’s look at the NLS community’s role in promoting instances of sexually inappropriate behaviour. We are responsible – but not because we did not stop the act when it happened. We are responsible – but not because we failed to stop a student from taking someone to the washroom during a party. These instances could have happened and may happen without anyone spotting the act or the perpetrator.
We are responsible – but not even because we did not explicitly speak up when such an incident happened. The biggest disasters have happened when we have blindly believed the words and conduct of a person on the face of it (to explain this point, I will write an article some other time). Just because Modi says that he cares about minorities and considers them part of India, doesn’t mean he believes that. Hence, taking a stand may be of no relevance in a wider scheme of things. In my opinion, taking a stand could be just a convenient way to divert blame. Mere words are insufficient and silence in condemnation may not always mean ‘being an enabler’ – what we need to do is look around and go beyond performative activism. We need to take responsibility for the culture that prevails.
What we are responsible for is creating an environment of hypersexuality and alcoholism during our parties. The culture of hypersexuality when mixed with alcohol is instrumental, and is the trigger for all these sexually inappropriate behaviours. This culture has been passed from one batch to another. Hence, no Law Schoolite can be absolved.
To better understand this deadly combination, we will have to go a little into the science behind alcohol. To say that alcohol helps its consumers put down their guards and makes them happy is not absolutely true. What alcohol actually does is, after a certain level, induce myopia. Myopia has two components. First, the person is incapable of assessing the long-term implications of his act, and second, his acts start being dictated by his environment.
- First Component: Short-sightedness
Myopia narrows our emotional and mental fields of vision. It creates, “a state of shortsightedness in which superficially understood, immediate aspects of the experience have a disproportionate influence on behaviour and emotion.” Alcohol makes the thing in the background less significant. It makes short-term considerations loom large, and more cognitively demanding, and longer-term considerations fade away. (Excerpts from: Malcolm Gladwell. “Talking to Strangers”). Alcohol incapacitates parts of our brain which handle complex, long-term considerations. In simpler words, a person is rendered incapable of assessing the long-term implications of his conduct. Potential police complaints or SHARIC proceedings do not threaten the person and are irrelevant considerations. This provides an answer to all those who have asked me why someone acted in such a manner even after knowing that there may be consequences. It also means that repeated amendments to strengthen the SHARIC Code may not yield substantial results.
- Second Component: Acts Dictated by the Environment
Drinking puts you at the mercy of your environment. As previously noted, immediate and near considerations gain paramount importance in an inebriated state. It is on you as to how you structure your environment. If you were to drink alone, you are likely to feel more lonely. If you are drinking with your best friends and joking, you are likely to have a great experience. If you are going to drink in a conflict situation, you are likely to aggravate the conflict. Similarly, when someone is blind drunk, with people grinding on the dance floor who are hell-bent on going mad, then such an environment can possibly induce some short-sighted sexual consideration. This must also be seen in a broader framework, whereby hookup culture is glorified on campus. In fact, hypersexuality is inculcated within us on the very first day of college by asking our “Top 5”. Also, irresponsible drinking is the key defining feature of our NLS Culture. Be it Freshers, NYP, or SF, all I can see is people who are not really in their senses. Despite knowing the consequence, we boast about the unlimited alcohol availability at our parties and afterparties, and try to justify it with a 5-minute SHARIC Orientation parade.
The shortsightedness highlighted above, induced by irresponsible drinking and combined with a culture of hypersexuality, leads to the occurrence of grave sexual offences on campus. Even after knowing this, I am sure we won’t do much. Rather than addressing the issues of hypersexuality or irresponsible drinking, we will choose to cancel parties altogether or just blame those who may have committed such acts in the past and prevent them from attending parties.
Taking you back to the Camba, do you know why there is no sexual misconduct in their gathering despite them leading a lonely lifestyle? It is because they have used transformative power to create a healthy communal expression for themselves – they have used the myopia of alcohol to temporarily create a different world for themselves. They gave themselves strict rules: one bottle at a time, an organized series of toasts, all seated around the circle, only on the weekends, never alone. They drank only within a structure that had a world of soft music and quiet conversation: order, friendship, predictability, and ritual. This Camba society was manufactured with the assistance of one of the most powerful drugs on earth. (Excerpt from: Malcolm Gladwell. “Talking to Strangers”)
With that said, seniors should not and need not take pride in the number of first-years they help pass out in the Freshers Party. Similarly, there is no need for the DJ to play the “Manali Trance” song to make the party wild. Whenever college reopens, we must endeavour to have a more disciplined party culture, particularly involving clamping down on alcohol consumption. If you want the liberty to drink as much as you want, stay in your room. As I said before, alcohol by default does not lead to social pathology. The culture of hypersexuality is what makes it toxic. It is on us to control consumption and hypersexuality.
Conclusion
What I said may have been very obvious. If you thought it was, then you’re on the right path. However, connecting all the dots may not be that easy for everyone. By the end, all I have is three conclusions.
First, each and every Law Schoolite, present and past, is responsible for the instances of sexual assault that have happened under intoxication in law school parties. Even more than the accused, I’d say. Many of us may have made the mistake of facilitating an environment for such wrongdoing, but it is high time that we make amends. Let us moderate the alcohol and alcoholism, and bring down the hypersexuality. Second, writing a Quirk article when I am supposed to write a seminar paper is not a good decision. Third, my summary writing skills are not even close to those of Megha Mehta!
May we have safer parties in the future!
The authors central claim is that in law school, alcohol coupled with hyper sexuality is responsible for sexual assault. To prove this he follows a logic like this- most sexual assault incidents (a trend, according to the author) happen around alcohol and parties. When a potential harasser X (who otherwise has internalized the cost of harassment and the idea of consent) drinks alcohol, he loses his rational cost-benefit analysis calculus and his understanding of consent and encouraged by all the consensual sexual activity (grinding) that going on around him, commits sexual assault.
The author does say that he doesn’t think alcohol is the only reason why someone commits sexual assault but thinks that the alternative is either not understanding consent fully (something he thinks isn’t possible in law school) or an inherent character flaw (which he also is (thankfully) unsure about). So it’s fair to say he definitely puts alcohol at a high position in the list of causality.
Here is why he is wrong.
(1) The author is mistaken in taking the recent #metoo call outs as both a definitive account of the fact that sexual assault takes place and the kind of sexual assault that takes place. Sexual assault has been a part of law school long before anyone started calling it out. Sexual assault also predominantly does not happen in the context of a quad party by drunk perpetrators (no matter how many of the accused claim so in their non-apologies). They happen in the context of sober interactions, relatively sober perpetrators (drunk victims), in meticulously planned ways, in intimate relationships. This by itself is an irredeemable blind spot in the authors argument.
(2) People don’t internalize consent the way the author seems to think so because of one Lizzie session (after all lizzie also spent hours talking about not selecting facts that support your pre-conceived theory and the author sure continues to be afflicted by that). Sometimes people just don’t understand it, most times people might have heard of it and decided it wasn’t worth their time.
(3) Related to this is the fact that people (no matter what law and economics may have taught you) aren’t rational actors doing things pursuant to a cost-benefit analysis and alcohol making them forget their costs causes them to violate consent. People are a lot messier than that.
(4) Finally and what I think is the most damning, the conflating of consensual sex with non-consensual sexual assault. There is a gap between seeing consensual sexual activity around X and X then committing non-consensual sexual assault. That gap will not, no matter how hard you try, be filled by alcohol and hyper-sexuality. Also the demonization of all the consensual grinding sounds an awful lot like the arguments made by the anti-JNU brigade. Good for the people of Campa that they want to drink and sit around talking peacefully but there’s nothing wrong with consensual grinding. (I agree that part of the issue is the glorification of hook up culture (hooking up at all costs) and objectification but that seems to be secondary in the authors consideration.)
(5) What that gap will be filled by is patriarchy, power and domination. The author will do well by supplementing his reading of Gladwell with feminist theorists, especially if he wants to take on the messy topic of sexual assault in law school. [Oooh I too saved the answers for the last- witty me].
(6) I understand why its so tempting to make these loosely held correlated beliefs, into definitive arguments. There’s definitely a culture around that to blame in law school, but don’t do it. It’s sounds like something off whatsapp and doesn’t definitely explain anything about why sexual assault happens. Do I think alcohol plays some role in some instances, sure maybe. But does it says anything larger about sexual assault on an Indian college campus- not really.
The article terribly shifts the cause of sexual assault to a sexual environment. If 2 couples are making out around a drunk person in a party, how does that explain an act of sexual assault by the said drunk person? The logic is that if people are being sexual around me and I’m drunk, this “hypersexual” environment makes me also so sexual that I go and assault someone else. It’s such a convenient excuse for people who’ve assaulted others in a drunk state – “Oh I was drunk and NLS Parties are “hypersexual”. Blame everyone else who was consensually making out there or maybe wearing revealing clothes and dancing in a sexual manner with themself. Also, this entire thing about parties being “hypersexual” is so much moral policing. It’s on the verge of saying that sexual environments are bad and sexual expression is bad. If I choose to be openly sexual in a party, either with someone else (consensually ofc) or with myself, I am not to blame for the actions of a sexual harrasser.
“If I choose to be openly sexual in a party, either with someone else (consensually ofc) or with myself, I am not to blame for the actions of a sexual harrasser.” Well, only if problem was limited to this, this article wouldn’t have been necessary.
Also, that’s not what a culture of hypersexuality needs to entail. It’ll do us all good to keep the focus on objectification and glorification of hook-up culture, which starts right from those PI sessions in 1st year.
The problem is in seniors handing out tasks like “write a poem on orange, with orange being a metaphor for boobs” to first years. The problem is in forcing people to identify their “top 5”. The problem is in a bunch of men in Himalaya sitting and “ranking” “body parts” of their batchmates. The problem is in seniors forcing the juniors to “chug” their drunks without considering whether that junior is capable of handling his/her alcohol. The problem is in developing a culture (through our constant conversations) that “celebrates” having “hooked-up” with a “10/10” or having “scored big”. The culture that makes it seems like you HAVE to drink to fit-in (though you might not be capable to handling your alcohol), that you NEED to have sex/ hook-up to fit in, to sound “cool”. And every single one of us, knowingly or unknowingly, is guilty of perpetuating that culture. That’s all the article is aiming to point out. It’s problematic that we fail to identify our role in feeding that culture. Too oblivious to the reality or just too scared to accept it?
You have the full freedom to consensually hook-up with whoever you want to, freely express yourself sexually. And to the extent the article demonises consensual sexual activity and identifies it as a cause of a drunk person losing his long-sightedness, it is problematic, yes. No one and absolutely nothing can be an excuse or justification for violating consent. If you feel that alcohol made you let your guard down and forget those lessons of consent, then you never properly understood them in the first place. And yes, the article also does have its fallacies in hinting towards absolving the individual perpetrator and making assumptions about them having sufficient knowledge of consent and a good character.
But it’ll do all of us some good if we stop being so defensive now when one of fingers is pointing at us, as a community. Let’s all encourage better conversations about consent, stop glorifying hook-ups, stop objectifying people and encourage responsible drinking.
Agree completely with Ghost of Vedica.
The sad thing is that XYZ’s comment points out issues with NLS culture far better than this borderline rape apology masquerading as an article. It’s incorrect to assume that that’s “all the article is aiming to point out.” The article aims to downplay the actions of aggressors by blaming awful, evil, non-sanskaari quad parties & field scenes, instead of the absolute disregard for female (or even male) personhood that the aggressor obviously holds.
Too oblivious to reality or too high up on your horse to see it?
Would have agreed with the author if the author said what you did – but he doesn’t really, does he? A lot of what you pointed out in terms of our culture, is basically just an indictment of a campus culture that is objectificatory and definitely so in a way that is deeply gendered. There is no hint of an understanding of gender power dynamics in the arguments made by the author. I get the tendency to build up someone’s argument to defend (what you identify) as their core thesis, but just calling the super problematic stuff the author says “fallacies”, is, well, super problematic. The overall tone and tenor of the article definitely is one that shifts blame from the individual to the environment in a college party – I am scared to think about the impact this would have on impressionable first years reading it, or harassers reading it who now feel vindicated in their frequent “it wasn’t me, it was the alcohol” excuses. There were a billion ways to make the argument that “a culture that glorifies objectification-induced hypersexuality is a factor in sexual assault” and the argument that “alcohol brings out otherwise dormant character flaws in a person” – and those billion ways could be feminist ways that respect individual agency of both the harasser and the victim, without reducing them to victims of other people’s consensual sexual activity. To say, “this isn’t about a character flaw at all, alcohol just makes you a different person from the usual feminist boi you are” is bullshit and you know it.
Hey,
The scope of this article is limited to tracing the responsibility of the NLS community in intoxication driven assaults during parties. Assaults in sober conditions are beyond the purview of this article. Further, the objective is not to absolve the chief perpetrator.
Further, the glorification of hook up culture and objectification are in no manner secondary considerations. Rather they are the chief constituents of ‘hypersexuality’.
The causes under this piece are not exhaustive. Character flaws and predatory behaviour do play a major role in sexual assaults but this article tries to find causes beyond that.
The problematic statements which indicate victim blaming have already been pointed out in previous comments.
I do agree that the article heavily misplaces fault on environmental factors and makes a gigantic logical leap from people engaging in sexual behaviour at parties to someone being driven to commit sexual assault! I mean, a lot of people are at these parties who DO NOT commit assault right?
Look at this sentence in the conclusion,
“First, each and every Law Schoolite, present and past, is responsible for the instances of sexual assault that have happened under intoxication in law school parties. Even more than the accused, I’d say.”
EVEN MORE SO THAN THE ACCUSED??? I think the first two comments to the article provided enough feedback on why that’s highly problematic. But still, I’ll add a few things.
The characterisation of the topic of the article as “Intoxication DRIVEN assaults” fundamentally misplaces the true cause of assaults and places too much premium on an external stimulant like assault or parties where other people might be consensually engaging in sexual behaviour – and not enough on the perpetrator.
The fact that the author chooses to call these assaults “Intoxication driven” and his rejection of “character theory” because supposedly people who have been one-time offenders have been respectful in other situations exposes a contradiction in his own claims – this is that people understand consent.
If perpetrators understood consent they WOULDN’T ASSAULT WOMEN ANYWHERE EVER. Just because someone has been respectful otherwise does not convert a “PERPETRATOR DRIVEN assault” into an “Intoxication driven assault” – alcohol is NOT the driver – the attacker is. So this whole logic presented in the article effectively translates into – “OH HE IS NICE OTHERWISE BUT ALCOHOL AND TOO MANY PEOPLE GRINDING MADE HIM DO IT”.
See the problem? It sounds like harassment apology, and specifically where people who are otherwise respectful [case in point, several ‘respected and revered’ law school seniors who have abused their position in the past to assault women when drunk] – are concerned.
[And no no I’m not saying you necessarily intended parts of the article to come off this way – but they do.]
I understand that the glorification of the need to hook up may play a part in moulding people’s beliefs about things. But truly the root cause of any assault is the lack of respect for women, the male entitlement our society inculcates from birth and obviously, the perpetrator’s lack of care for another human being.
This brings me to this bit,
“Alcohol incapacitates parts of our brain which handle complex, long-term considerations. In simpler words, a person is rendered incapable of assessing the long-term implications of his conduct. Potential police complaints or SHARIC proceedings do not threaten the person and are irrelevant considerations.”
What I found truly baffling here is that the only considerations the author mentions here are possible complaints and literally not the most glaringly obvious consideration of HARMING ANOTHER PERSON PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY – which is linked squarely with the matter of consent.
This only furthers my point about there being a lack of real understanding of consent as a consideration to take into account even.
I understand that the author intended to point out flaws in the law school culture (and yes, there are flaws) with the value it places on hooking up with people to “be cool” etc – but that’s been lost in the highly problematic statements the rest of the article contains.
Please re read the Ghost of Vedika.
Intentionally or not, you have contributed to rape culture.
Remember Correlation is not causation.
Your understanding of sexual assaults happening on campus is grossly underwhelming. Before deciding your opinion on a subject is valid or things that should be said out loud ever. Please, you know, do your research.
Please offer some dignity and respect to actual victims on campus and don’t give their assaulters a reason to feel justified and shift the blame where it belongs, on their sexual predatory shoulders. Thanks.
Academic writing inculcates many flaws if not taught correctly. The “scope” of your article cannot be limited to sexual assault taking place in the context of alcohol consumption and divorced completely from all other sexual assault or patriarchy or reality itself. They are necessarily connected and wishing them away does not make your argument valid. Also, the stated objective of your piece is irrelevant if your piece does exactly what you claim it does not do.
As regards “hypersexuality”, please refer to Ghost of Vedica’s comment. The problem is not that people are engaging in consensual sexual activity, whether it is in public or in private. The problem is that hooking up is held out to be necessary and desirable to the extent that it makes people feel like they simply must do it to fit it. As regards objectification, who objectifies whom, my friend? You conveniently omit the gendered nature of objectification in your article and point to all consensual sexual activity as the problem. Off the top of my head, I can count at least 5 different instances of sexual harassment in law school where men objectified women to no end, but unfortunately, they were all sober so I guess you can’t absolve them of all responsibility.
Finally and this may come as a surprise to you – I’ve been piss drunk many times in my life including at law school but I haven’t assaulted anyone. Myriads of people fit this description. So then maybe the problem isn’t alcohol? Think about it.
And don’t do yourself a disservice by reading Gladwell and assuming you’ve figured out sexual harassment. Read a feminist author or two and put some thought into what you’re writing because it contributes to rape culture, which you will never bear the brunt of, in all likelihood.
Chief perpetrator matlab? There’s a deputy? And a lieutenant?
Nobody except the perpetrator has any responsibility towards the behaviour of that person.
What you’re trying to say is that too much sex and too much booze makes people harass others. And that’s a lousy excuse, if not a gross clean chit you’re giving to people you think are “respectful in other instances”.
Tragic that seniors at law school now think their uncle gyaan about these “vulgar youths” deserves to be taken seriously.
This article, sir, is patronising vacuousness masquerading as well-intentioned analysis. On a somewhat unrelated note, if I may be so bold, the reactions of your father and sister regarding the consumption of alcohol seem to be rather overwrought. A discussion delving into the familial unit’s attitude towards alcohol may perhaps be of some use.
“However, my single kidney has been stronger than Law School influence. I just feel sad for the kidney to start with – when I was 10, the only pressure that this lone kidney felt was that of supporting a 6-foot body without a partner kidney.”
I think the Author has made the reason for his family’s (wholly legitimate) concerns towards the consumption of alcohol abundantly clear.
Nothing to add beyond what Ghost of Vedica & Safe Space Seeker have already stated. Irrespective of the author’s intent, the impact is this: ‘Hey those perpetrators aren’t such awful guys. They’re actually nice (other than that one time they sexually assaulted a person)! It’s only alcohol and parties that are making them this way!’
Obviously there are issues with law school culture that need to be addressed, but this article barely does that.
Tbh it’s pretty shocking that we’re STILL having this regressive & downright fallacious argument in 2020.
Dear commentators,
All your opinions and comments on the article are greatly appreciated. However, please do be respectful towards the author and the other commentators, and please avoid making personal comments.
We encourage you to engage with the substantive content of the article, without targeting the identity of the author.
Love,
Quirk Team
Assuming I take what you’ve written as possibly true. Even though I don’t believe it is….
So you’re saying if you had drank alcohol in this environment, you too would have become a rapist or sexual predator?
It’s a good thing you don’t drink then. Maybe let’s tell men or women who feel like they will rape or assault people dude to the “hypersexual” (the way you’ve explained this word is not what the definition of this word is, further it’s totally debatable if this is even a hypersexual space in the first place) culture to practice self control and not drink if they feel like they may turn into rapists. If you’re not 100% sure you won’t rape people while drinking. Don’t drink. The responsibility to not drink is still on the perp. Don’t see how it works out to a societal problem.
PSA if you’re a rapist please don’t drink and then blame it on the alcohol because you know, you can simply not drink, just like you can simply not rape but clearly rape is the uncontrollable urge. (Please recognise the sarcasm) Hopefully all of yall rapists can excercise control over your personal drinking and simply not do it. I’m looking at y’all humans who liked this article on insta. I hope you will all refrain from drinking henceforth since y’all believe or support the belief that alcohol might actually make you rape someone, particularly because you can’t seem to differentiate between hyper sexuality or consent.
The only societal problem that NLS has, is the way we talk about sexual assault. How concerned we are to find any reason other than a person’s voluntary choice to take away someone else’s basic human rights….. As the reason for rape so we get to keep the people we like around and don’t have to admit we want to be friends with rapists and sexual abusers.
Do better NLS. Do a lot better
– a very un impressed alumni who can’t believe this stuff is still being published on Quirk.
P.S. Quirk, you can’t publish write ups that are pro rape culture and absolve yourself by saying these are not our views. At least proof read it, ask for sources of this information, something to make sure what your publishing is sound information wise?
C’mon you guys… aren’t you supposed to be a “literary” magazine? Isn’t there some editorial screening happening? One day, you’ll publish a hypocritical, vitriolic rant by ‘anonymous’ that demeans anyone who doesn’t agree with them; next day you’ll publish this pseudo-intellectual rape apologist’s ‘logical’ piece that is extremely divorced from reality.
Yes, we’re proud to be literary magazine chronicling Law School experiences! We have a rigourous editorial process which we have discussed in the past. You can read more about it on our website or alternatively drop us a mail to know more.
While we do bear responsibility for what we choose to publish, we believe in encouraging discourse, rather than picking only what conforms to our specific world view (which is not even homogenous within the Quirk team, much less within college as a whole). We try to publish pieces that we believe have literary merit and encourage discourse/spark important conversations. While we may err sometimes, we remain committed to publishing quality content.
To see more enriching engagement on this piece please see our latest post – it may interest you!
Love,
Quirk Team
@Quirk editorial team- this has been pointed out before but please do review the pieces before posting them. There seems to be less to no reviewing done these days. You cannot absolve yourself of any blame just because you did not write this post yourself.
@Anon, we try our best, and review everything multiple times. We wish we could publish without review, would save us all so much time! (jk ofc) But alas, that is no way to run a magazine 😛
Unfortunately, we still don’t always make the perfect decision, we are human! We take all feedback very seriously, so thank you for writing in. We will try to do better, as always.
Best,
Mallika
(Writing in my personal capacity)
Dear team quirk/ Mallika, funny how you said that this post has been reviewed multiple times and still ended up getting published, yet the backlash that it has received within a day shows that maybe there’s something unsettling about this piece??
I completely agree with what @Sonia (Sunners) has stated towards the end of her comment and advise you to go through the same.
@Quirk Editorial Team- There is a difference between encouraging ‘alternative’ views and views that are downright regressive.
Kindly tighten up your screening process. This is the least that you owe to your readers.
While the article is fucked up on the first count of whitewashing a harasser’s conduct. It is also important to point out that it also makes me culpable when I haven’t done jack in life, being drunk or sober. What it does is it imputes a mark on my actions when they cannot be blamed. Even casts aspersions on all those times where my friends (some of them are also SHARIC facilitators) and I have gone out of our comfort zone to make the parties a safe space for others, even when we didn’t owe it to anyone. So, it just makes my conduct culpable when it is in fact not (I am using Me, I and my for anyone like me, includes you if you are not a harasser).
Also, while you have said you not having alcohol doesn’t determine your lack of experience in commenting about how alcohol fuels assaults on campus, I would recommend you have it for once. Or talk to friends who have alcohol and are not harassers (if you have any, because rn you look like an apologist for your harasser friends) and ask them how it is not that difficult to not assault someone while being high and have a good time like your Camba guys.
This article seems to have slipped through because of all the intellectual sugarcoating. Translate its conclusion to Hindi then it is a familiar and crass dialogue “tum sab zimedar ho sexual abuse ke liye kyu kim tum daru peete ho, chote kapde pehente ho, make out karte ho waghera waghera…” The author seems to have found alcohol and “hypersexuality” (WTF is that even) as prime causative factors for sexual harassment. The campus discourse on sexual harassment should focus on consent and strict enforcement of SHARIC code. This piece only legitimizes moral policing, any victim will think twice before approaching the authorities if the incident happened while he/she was drunk.