> This girl definitely expected she was about to be raped by an unknown man climbing through her window. The article seems to imply that it should be cool because he didn’t intend to do it because he was drunk. I think that’s crazy.
I don't know about "be cool", but what's the desired outcome here? Avoid a repeat occurrence? Sounds like that would likely happen with or without the order. So what's the use of this tool? Some sort of semi-punitive punishment? "Don't climb in this particular person's window again or else"?
No, as the article points out, the orders are mutual. They're intended to stabilize volatile situations and prevent escalation. Schools have other processes they run in parallel to evaluate things like assault accusations.
> They're intended to stabilize volatile situations and prevent escalation.
Wouldn't it be better, in many of these cases, to actually talk it out? When I was young and there was a conflict of this sort, we were taught to apologize and shake hands, as a sign of future goodwill.
There is a reason why non-reciprocal altruism (you can say assumption of good intent) is a thing in humans. If we are all only thinking reciprocally, then with errors and mistakes, nobody would communicate with anybody, and no relationship would ever come about.
Talk it out? Why would an intruder, whatever his "cool" drunken motives were, deserve her attention or anyone's for that matter? Why should anyone assume that such a person is a good boy, adept at 18 century manners? The risk isn't worth the bother.
On the one hand, we live in a busy word and if you consider drunken characters a waste of time, you should have a way of distancing yourself from them.
On the other hand, and far, far more important, not having such a way leaves the door wide open for abuse. "Oh sorry"... "Oh, Oh sorry again, may shake you hand again?"... "Oh, oh, oh..." FT.
Thank you for pointing out the orders are mutual; this strengthens my point. What is the use of one in the described situation? To stabilize and avoid escalation of the situation of "oh shit I'm so sorry I thought this was my friends room I am immediately leaving now"? Now neither of them can accidentally climb into the incorrect window that the other happens to be behind?
The no contact order being a response to unintentional contact is just blatantly the wrong tool for the job.
Presumably after an event like that one of those two students would have strong preferences to avoid the other, and it's hard to see any cognizable interest for the school in overriding that preference; meanwhile, honoring that preference stands a good chance of foreclosing on future conflicts between the two. A college has a mission, and should draft and enforce rules that further that mission. Students at colleges should get used to the idea that joining most mission-oriented organizations will involve complying with some set of rules, because that will certainly be expected of them in the workforce.
Again, I see the "fragility" narrative here in exactly the opposite way the WSJ article does: what's fragile to me is having a temper tantrum over being told that there's a mutual no-contact order in place between you and a student who doesn't want to be in contact with you.
Presumably after an event like that, both of the two students will have lots of thoughts, opinions, and feelings about the event and one another. Not all of these should be indulged, and it's entirely possible that doing so would in fact get in the way of the university's mission by adding new roadblocks and considerations to the day to day life of multiple students.
Part of being a young adult is learning how to operate in a society composed of people, something that developing teenage brains are not innately good at. And part of that learning process is not having all whims indulged, especially when they may be harmful to others.
Students at universities are not necessarily young adults. It makes sense to me that the institutions would enact policies that safeguard their core mission at the least possible expense.
Should we take bets as to whether the two students in this particular story were young adults?
No Contact orders are a useful tool. This isn't a case where they were the correct one to use.
Universities here are simply doing what requires the least possible amount of administrative effort to protect the university from legal liability. Not uncommon among schools in the US, university or otherwise.
It's not clear to me that there's an inappropriate time to use an NCO, so long as they're mutual and institution reasonably believes continued contact is going to cause drama, and thus expense. That's really all there is to the analysis as far as I'm concerned.
I don't know about "be cool", but what's the desired outcome here? Avoid a repeat occurrence? Sounds like that would likely happen with or without the order. So what's the use of this tool? Some sort of semi-punitive punishment? "Don't climb in this particular person's window again or else"?