Like many college campuses, AU hosts a predominately female student body. Though the gender breakdown is curiously absent from the university’s Web site, the Princeton Review reports AU to be 61.5 percent female, and according to a recent Times piece, the figure is in line with the national average: as of 2000, 57 pecent of students at American colleges are female, a number that has surely increased over the last decade.
Combine a female majority with AU’s reputation as a liberal enclave and a hotbed for radical activism, and one would not unreasonably expect to find an environment friendly to feminism. This seems to be true in nearly every aspect of campus culture: the Women’s Initiative is one of the most influential segments of the Student Government and sponsors frequent and popular events ranging from annual performances of The Vagina Monologues to sex education seminars, while other organizations like the Women and Politics Institute represent the university’s commitment to advancing the cause of gender equality. There remains, however, one glaring exception: The Eagle, AU’s most visible media representation of the university.
When an article in the Eagle announced Student Government approval for the creation of a Women’s Resource Center last November, the news was met with little fanfare. Though a major success for the Women’s Initiative, which had been lobbying since 2006 for a space in which to provide support and advocacy services for women on campus, the SG endorsement of the project seemed somewhat inevitable; after all, the comparable GLBTA Resource Center has been receiving university funding since 1999. Though the Eagle article was vague about the nature of the services the center would offer, it suggested that the WRC would pool existing resources for women, as well as create full-time staff positions in order to better provide counseling services to students, faculty and staff.
Also appearing in the November 1, 2009 issue of the paper, however, was a staff editorial that single-handedly generated a flurry of controversy about not only the Women’s Resource Center, but the state of feminist activism on campus. Titled “Questioning new resource centers,” the article suggested that the entire student body should not be responsible for funding services that only benefit “special subgroups.”
Representatives of the Women’s Initiative responded immediately in a published letter to the editor which emphasized that funding the WRC represents a commitment to social equality that should interest all AU students.
But while the Women’s Initiative response conveyed the finality of agreeing to disagree, The Eagle seemed eager to perpetuate the debate. On November 11, another article appeared, titled “Campus Debates Need for Women’s Center.” While the parties listed in favor of the WRC included sitting SG President Andy McCracken, previous AUSG administrations, and as one commenter noted, the Board of Trustees, the article quoted only two unaffiliated male undergrads as opponents.
Only a week later the controversy was stoked yet again by another inflammatory op-ed, this time by Eagle columnist Alex Knepper. A self-described “classical liberal,” Knepper became notorious in fall of 2009 for his conservative columns bemoaning various aspects of campus culture, especially those related to social justice organizations and leftist political movements. In an article tellingly titled “Feminist — err, Women’s Center Wastes Money,” Knepper decried the WRC as a front for feminist activism, arguing that the gender-based pay gap is a myth and that due to the female majority on campus, as well as the existing resources in place for sexual assault victims, there was no need to create a separate space for women.
Within days of its publication, Knepper’s column had garnered over 100 comments on the Eagle’s Web site, many of them from Knepper himself in response to members of the Women’s Initiative and other students expressing disapproval. Though it would be the last article in the Eagle specifically addressing the WRC, Knepper continued to make reference to the controversy and his disdain for the feminism in nearly all of his subsequent columns.
So how did seemingly unanimous approval of the WRC become a hot-button issue overnight?
In many ways, it never did: the controversy over the WRC was almost entirely manufactured by the Eagle. Though the staff editorial did generate heated debate in the comments section of the online edition, many of the comments the editorial garnered were attributed to Alex Knepper, most in response to other commenters questioning his and the Eagle’s negative response to the WRC. Often, these comments were not even directly related to the WRC, but rather veered into debates between Knepper and other commenters about the existence of “rape culture,” or whether or not women are entitled to paid maternity leave.
By the time the article by Sarah Parnass covering the “controversy” was published on November 11, a disagreement had certainly arisen, but it seemed to be almost exclusively between Knepper and the Women’s Initiative. His editorial column later that week seemed to be only further confirmation that the opposition was small, if not singular. By the end of the fall semester, discussion of the WRC had all but ceased in the Eagle, with the exception of occasional snarky references from Knepper.
The treatment of the Women’s Resource Center represents the latest in a disturbing trend toward antifeminist bias in the Eagle. Earlier in the semester, a sex advice column entitled “Sex-perimentation Defines Welcome Week” created a similar dust-up between Eagle staff and the Women’s Initiative over its treatment of rape. The story even garnered coverage on Washington City Paper’s Sexist blog. Columnist Amanda Hess expressed incredulity that “The Eagle chose to use a woman’s hazy, drunk, and painful sexual experience in order to illustrate the serious on-campus problem of . . . drunk women wanting boyfriends!” When their decision to run the “Sex-perimentation” column was called into question, Eagle staffers accused the Women’s Initiative of “crying wolf” over an imagined sexual scenario that, in their minds, did not illustrate lack of consent.
Their argument against the Women’s Resource Center was similarly weakly-worded. The staff editorial stated that while “all of AU’s male students will be paying into the same fund that will create and maintain this center … they won’t reap the same benefits as women will.” But presumably, many straight-identified students pay to fund the GLBTA Resource Center, just as able-bodied students’ tuition helps to fund the Disability Support Center. Would the Eagle oppose budget allotments for these services as well?
The likely answer is no, which says more about the Eagle’s espoused attitude toward feminists than its concern for how AU uses its funds. Their argument seems to rest on the idea that at a school where women are in the majority and resources already exist to address issues like sexual assault, there is no need for a center catering specifically to the needs of female students and staff.
But according to Sarah Brown, Director of the Women’s Initiative, the need for the WRC is urgent and well-founded, in part because it will provide for a professional advocate and counselor on women’s issues.
“Because sexual assault is such a problem on campus, in addition to other problems female students and faculty face, such as inadequate and expensive gynecological services, sexual harassment, and unfair hiring and tenuring practices, women on campus need a full-time advocate,” Brown said, noting that creating such a position without additional university funding would have been impossible as a “student group with a student budget.”
Brown also acknowledged that while those opposed to the WRC were few in number, they received maximum coverage in the Eagle.
“Mr. Knepper and his few followers are a handful of vocal students who are fortunate enough to have a media outlet for their opinions,” she said, adding that “there are always individuals who fear that by creating a resource for others they are not being treated ‘fairly.’”
While the Eagle staff certainly seems to be among those students fearing marginalization by a feminist majority, perhaps what is most disheartening about the state of the paper is that its latest foray into political engagement will likely forestal the absence of progressive voices in its pages.
It’s no secret that many student journalists have been turned off by the Eagle’s lack of quality control, and while conservatives like Alex Knepper should certainly have a voice in student publications, it seems unfortunate that on a left-leaning, predominantly female campus, opinions like Knepper’s not only go unchallenged in the op-ed section, but are actually bolstered by the editorial staff.
But after months of relative silence, Knepper returned with his most inflammatory column yet. Titled “Dealing with AU’s Anti-Sex Brigade,” he argued, among other things, that date rape is an “incoherent concept” because, by drinking alcohol, women implicitly consent to sex with any male in the vicinity.
The response from the university community against Knepper and the Eagle was swift and unforgiving; Eagle newspaper stands were vandalized, some labeled with signs reading “NO ROOM FOR RAPE APOLOGISTS.” Various parties from the Women’s Initiative to Student Government representatives immediately decried Knepper’s statement as offensive and appalling, while Eagle editors stood behind their decision to run the piece as evidence of their commitment to free speech. The comments section on the online verison of Knepper’s column was eventually frozen after death threats and personal attacks overtook any sane dialogue that had been occurring.
Sadly, this latest controversy over Knepper’s disavowal of the existence of date rape seems to be the logical trajectory of several articles’ worth of increasingly provocative content, most of which seems to be generated for the sole purpose of causing outrage. Though time will tell how the Eagle staff will ultimately confront of the question of whether or not to continue running Knepper’s pieces, he has certainly succeeded in engulfing the campus in another debate over what should be a settled argument.
Correction: Though the article formerly stated that Alex Knepper was responsible for 2/3 of the comments on the 11/1/09 staff editorial, this figure was inaccurate – Knepper in fact wrote 17 of the comments on the article.
Ashley, I really appreciated this comprehensive run-down of the events so far. Awesome work.
Ashley (and the entire AWOL staff), I am proud of THIS publication. This article is well researched, well argued, and well written. It should be the standard, but with The Eagle on campus, it and the other AWOL articles like it are exceptions. Thank you.
Great article! Glad you guys clearly showed how crazy the Eagle staff is being by giving Knepper so much power to create debates over issues that are already settled
AWOL once again shows that AU students can write coherent articles. Shame the eagle staff never graduated grammar school.
I saw Knepper’s article and a subsequent link to this one via Facebook. I’m across the country, in Arizona. I’m not gay and certainly not republican, but I couldn’t agree more with the editor’s assertion that Knepper “has raised questions that warrant discussion.” IN NO WAY has Knepper denied the validity of ALL rape: he accurately posits that “the lines of consent in sex — especially anonymous sex — can become very blurry” which can hardly be considered a blanket denial.
It is absolutely self-aggrandizing for Joyce to claim Knepper’s article “seems to be generated for the sole purpose of causing outrage.” Such a claim dismissing the article as a whole is tantamount to asserting that false claims of rape are ALWAYS completely fabricated lies — incredibly ironic given the very reason Knepper’s haters are all up in arms is because they feel he’s doing to them (absolute denial of their validity) exactly what they actually are doing to him (absolute denial of his validity).
i’d like to point out that the entirety of the eagle staff cannot and should not be lumped into the category of knepper supporters: there is a minority of eagle staffers who do not support the editorial decisions of the rest of the staff, on this particular matter and others. sadly, and as with any “democracy”, staff editorials are not entirely representative of the opinions of the staff as a whole.
@Jason Moriarity: Alex Knepper was quoted in an interview with our local ABC affiliate ABC7 as saying that he “enjoys stirring the pot,” so I don’t think even he himself would deny that he is purposefully provocative.
Furthermore, while it is certainly encouraging that his article has inspired so many men and women at AU to have a serious conversation about the definitions of consent and rape, that dialogue could have happened without the asinine name-calling (”snivelling emotional cripples,” for instance) that Knepper engaged in and without making thinly-veiled references to an actual case of sexual assault that occured on American University’s campus.
@Hilary: Believe me, I have several good friends on the Eagle staff who were not in any way affiliated with the decision to run this article, so please don’t think I’m condemning everyone. I’m merely suggesting that recent editorial decisions, while hardly a misogynist conspiracy, have been consistent in their disregard for women, and the decision to run Knepper’s date rape piece is just the latest in this trend.
After reading so much garbage from The Eagle, I find your article (and the rest of AWOL) totally refreshing! Thank you for writing about this issue in an intelligent and sane manner.
“IN NO WAY has Knepper denied the validity of ALL rape: he accurately posits that “the lines of consent in sex — especially anonymous sex — can become very blurry” which can hardly be considered a blanket denial.”
In the previous paragraph he outright states that if a person drinks 5 drinks and then goes back a person’s room than they already have consented. What this statement says is that you are giving up the right to consent if you drink and go back to a persons room.
In the follow up interviews Knepper’s done I really find it fascinating that he has completely avoided, ignored, and I would say actually contradicted this statement.
““seems to be generated for the sole purpose of causing outrage.” Such a claim dismissing the article as a whole is tantamount to asserting that false claims of rape are ALWAYS completely fabricated lies ”
I think the frustrating thing is that to even find any real intellectual claims (which are sparse and mostly just referred to rather than explained) you have to wade through phrases like “sniveling bunch of emotional cripples”, “anti-sex brigade”, and ” If that bothers you, then stick with Pat Robertson and his brigade of anti-sex cavemen.”
I think if he had dedicated the whole column to the subjectivity of consent and the difficulties that result, the article would have likely promoted an interesting and provacative discussion. That claim is for the most part an afterthought in a rant about feminism.
Hey, I just went back to the November 1st editorial. I though 2/3 sounded a little high so I did some counting. Turns out Knepper only commented 17 times out of 106 total comments.
I’d like to add my appreciation for Ashley’s thoughtful response, and only hope her essay gets as much attention as the original column. I found out about the Eagle debacle via a friend of mine; she was raped in a similar situation that the original columnist dismisses, over ten years ago. The debate over rape v. regret has changed little, not because it’s a complicated issue, but because divisive rants like Alex Knepper’s.
In this vein, I second Richard’s last paragraph. While I initially had the same blind rage as many readers, I realized what I found most offensive was not the columnist’s viewpoint or the questions he raises, but how he based his claims off a stereotype–one that many on campus implicitly share despite all of the women-focused groups.
I hear intelligent young women (and men) say, “I’m not a feminist”, but they take for granted the privileges of co-educational colleges, job opportunities, equal pay for equal work, and the right to vote. (Not to mention, thanks to second-wave feminists, increased acceptance of sex before marriage, and–shockingly–women knowing they can have orgasms.)
Amidst all of the noise right now, I am heartened to see students (as well as other parts of the campus community) examine the implications of poorly written hate-mongering, as well as try to find the truth. Thank you Ashley, and the AWOL staff, for furthering reasonable, productive discourse.
@Jimmy: Thanks for catching that, it was indeed an error and it has been corrected.
Unfortunately your “nightmare” male scenario does happen all too often. I have seen it over and over and over, so much that it has become the old story of the wife, girlfriend, or partner gets caught cheating then screams rape.
Reality
I worked 12 years in law enforcement (4 years military and 8 years civilian) and saw a lot of the “morning remorse” that Alex is pointing at in his column. The reality is that there are woman who do this. There are countless cases of woman having consensual sex and then, for whatever reason, falsely accusing the man of rape. Many of these cases get thwarted during police investigation but some go to trial before the truth is told. The men who are falsely accused have their lives ruined! Woman who actually get rapped are crippled by these false accusations!
No means No! No matter what! Yes means Yes even when a woman is intoxicated at the time and regrets it when she is sober. Making a poor decision while intoxicated does not excuse your actions or make someone else guilty for theirs. We all make poor decisions at points in our lives. Learn from it and move on.
Reality is that false accusations happen all the time! It doesn’t get much reporting because the victims ask for it to be kept quiet to protect their public reputation. Sometimes women do it to try to protect their own reputation. Sometimes it is for more malicious reasons.
Reality is that once a man has the finger of rape pointed at him it will never matter that he was found not guilty or that it was completely false. All anyone will ever remember is that his name was involved in something horrible and dirty.
I agree that the pendulum of sexual justice needed to be equalized. Lately it appears that it has swung so far in the other direction that it might need a new correction.
I have two daughters and I fully intend on ensuring that they know not to put themselves in any position that if they ever were to get raped it would be difficult to prove. I think the point Alex is making is that anyone that puts themselves in a position where it would be difficult to prove a crime occurred, let alone identify the villain, is displaying irresponsible behavior. I don’t feel that he is a rape apologist or trying to excuse rape.
Lets not pretend that “morning remorse” never happens. All I have to do is point at the Duke Lacrosse Case to prove my point. There are studies out there that have put the number of false rape cases as high as 41%. If we just looked at the amount of cases, current day, that are exonerated by DNA evidence it is around 26%.
So let us just go minimal. 26% is a number I can agree with (though it doesn’t count the malicious lying that the police catch before trial).
As for the “morning remorse” I would agree that it is more rare but it does happen. As you can see the subject needs to be looked at with a more objective eye.
By the way, when you look at the Military’s numbers, the amount of false rape reports are appalling.
I think you’re missing the boat on a few points here.
The Eagle isn’t a media ‘representation’ of the university. The only media representation of the university is the PR department that it employs. When the Eagle becomes a representation of AU, it’s no longer a viable news source.
Sure, The Eagle can take on a natural slant, but it is in no way required to cater to the 60 percent female population. That would bring the next point as to why the Eagle continues to be anti-feminist. Student newspapers aren’t ever in the best financial situations, so what better way to stir up the advertising dollars than stirring up new readership? I guarantee they haven’t seen web traffic like this before.
In terms of sports journalism, inflammatory types like Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless are far more famous than the likes of Wright Thompson and Eric Adelson, who are better writers by miles.
Many of the folks taking issue with Knepper’s right to publish opinions would probably identify as liberals. Why does the liberal viewpoint stop at free speech, though?
Knepper’s attempt at making a point is off, and I fully disagree with it. But, Jason Moriarty has a point regarding denial of validity. Hate speech is a huge grey area (that probably shouldn’t exist,) but I think this is far from it. We don’t have to agree, but we should at least listen.
This is ridiculous, merely because of the title. The Eagle staffers are in no way against feminists. To say that they’re “hostile” is such an overstatement. That would be such a conflict of interests considering that practically over half of the editors are females, as well as members of WI. To slam the Eagle now at a time when students are rallying together is totally unfair. I feel bad for the writers who don’t support the foolish things that Knepper said, but are getting a bad rap for it.
@ Adam.
Please cite your sources. Those statistics are far higher than any I have ever seen and would like to verify them.
Thank you.
Adam’s statistics are laughably exaggerated. Reliable research indicates that false reports are 2%-8% of all allegations. The 41% he is quoting is from a scientifically flawed report (researcher’s name is Kanin) that experts in the field do not consider to be reliable.
AWOL is going to post my op-ed about false reporting myths, probably sometime next week. And my op-ed will include works cited.
-Mahri Irvine
@Mahri,
Yes, those are the most inflammatory and false statistics I have ever seen. I am familiar with that study, and like every other self respecting academic, have dismissed it. Anyone who has worked with this issue, or known a survivor, or has a pulse should be able to see through it. I wanted to give Adam a chance to recant or defend the study, either would have shown his true identity as a misogynistic, violence supporter. Adam, men like you give all men a bad name and it is shameful. The FBI holds false report statistics at between 2 and 6% and that DOES include pre-trial findings. That is the exact same false report rate as any violent crime. And if anyone wishes to see the study, I have the citations readily available. I try, in all cases, to back up what I say.
With 1 in 4 college women becoming the survivors of a completed act of sexual assault (rape) in her lifetime, we cannot afford to hear the lies and violence supporting rhetoric of those who wish to condemn women who have done nothing wrong.
You said yes means yes even when a woman is intoxicated, but the law luckily has evolved much faster than you have. While you drag your knuckles on the issues of gender equality and anti-violence, the law has said that any person who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol is physically helpless or mentally incapacitated and thus unable to consent. That is what we call rape, and you have the audacity to support it! Oh, and if you want, I can show you that literature also.
“Morning Remorse” as you stated it is sexual assault. As an officer of the law you should understand that.
Adam, you give bad name to all men and to those of us who have proudly served our country in the military. Shame on you.
“The hysteria surrounding false rape reporting is due to a number of issues, many of which cannot be fully elaborated upon here. They include institutional patriarchy…”
This is how most of us tell that you’ve stopped thinking and are now in propaganda mode.
@Mongo
Would you like to argue against / deny the existence of institutional patriarchy in our (North American, “Western,” United States of America’s, or humanity) society?
I know that asking this question on your internet site might be unethical but I think my girlfriend is screwing on me. You know, coming in home late from the office, going out with the girlfriends all the time. Rinsing the garments as soon as she gets home. We don’t even do it anymore Do you cats got any tips as to how I could acquire the truth?
Women Issues these days are mostly about women empowerment and equal rights among men.-:’
Free Speech, why you guys might not like what he says, and personally I don’t like what he says. In the end tho I do have to commend the Eagle for publishing it and being an outlet for free speech regardless of it’s context.