comparative analysis
Last Name 1
Last Name 7
First Name Last Name
Professor Barlow
ENGL 1302-33002
20 March 2017
Rape Culture vs. College Girls: The Lie Within
There are many problems in our society that need to be fixed. Actually fixing those problems, though, is easier said than done. When it comes to the topic of safety, stronger initiatives need to be taken in order to protect one another. In particular, the topic of rape is a very controversial subject because individuals like to pick sides rather than solve the actual issue at hand. What is even more controversial, one could argue, is the subject of campus rape. Recently, I have read two articles that present completely different perspectives on the campus rape issue. The two articles are “The Campus Rape Myth” by Heather Mac Donald and “Campus Rape Crisis” by Michelle Goldberg. Though both articles address the 1-in-5 statistic, which states that one in five girls are sexually assaulted while in college, Mac Donald disagrees with this statistic, whereas Goldberg uses it to back up the fact that campus rape is a growing problem. Despite Goldberg and Mac Donald’s few weak points, both articles are effective in presenting their arguments because they have many strong points, sufficient evidence, and take a side that people did not think was an option.
A title is crucial for articles because that is what gets the article read. It is the first thing people read when opening an article. Without an eye-catching heading, an article will be overlooked and ignored. The article “The Campus Rape Myth” by Mac Donald really attracts readers. The title is effective because it made me want to find out more by clicking on it. For one, it has the word “rape” in the title. This word by itself attracts attention from almost anyone. People will find it interesting and want to find out what it’s about. In addition, the word “myth” brings about questions that the readers want an answer to. The combination of these two buzzwords could also potentially make readers angry because some may instantly react negatively to the idea that rape could be deemed a myth. Similarly, in the second article, Goldberg’s title, “Campus Rape Crisis,” is also very effective. By including the word “crisis,” people will ask themselves what makes it a crisis. They will ponder on what makes the issue so problematic. Despite the articles having opposing views, they both will attract readers to their work.
A claim is another important part of a writer’s work. It states the position that the writer takes. It needs to be clear and strong to keep the reader reading. The article that I read did have a very strong claim, despite it not being clear enough. MacDonald’s claim that I inferred is that it is incorrect for universities to assume “that one-quarter of all college girls will be raped or be the targets of attempted rape by the end of their college years.” She believes that this statistic is wrong and shouldn’t be a fact that people should readily accept. Furthermore, she believes that people have modified the definition of rape, which increases the statistics for rape. I will go into detail about the changing definitions of rape in the next paragraph. Even though I couldn’t find the claim explicitly stated, it was still strong. In the case of Goldberg’s article, the claim is that “the system is broken” (12). The system refers to the criminal justice system and universities not allowing the victim to get the fairness he or she deserves. Goldberg believes that women are not getting their justice because, in some way, people think it is their fault for being raped. The problem with this claim is that Goldberg needs to be more specific. Her claim was hard for me to figure out. Even though I also had to infer Mac Donald’s claim, her claim was at least noticeably implied.
The opposition is the opposite side of the argument. It gives the writer the reason to argue with the subject at hand. The opposition in Mac Donald’s dispute are feminists. They believe that they can define what rape is. According to Mac Donald, “Sixty-five percent of what the feminist researchers called ‘completed rape’ victims and three-quarters of ‘attempted rape’ victims said that they did not think that their experiences were ‘serious enough to report.’” Mac Donald’s point is that there is a difference between what feminist researches say and what the actual victims believe. If the victims thought that the crimes weren’t serious enough to report, then it wasn’t a crime at all in their eyes. The suspected victims, however, were probably still put into statistics erroneously. The opposition in Goldberg’s article was everyone who would side with the men in trial. Goldberg hated that fact that women were victim-shamed because of the instances at which the rape happened. An example that was given was a circumstance in which both parties were drunk. At first, the man lost the trial, but later appealed. The guy claimed that “since he’d been drinking too, technically she was an assailant as well” (Goldberg 2). With this testimony, he was able to go back to trial to defend himself so he could try to get back into his university. Luckily, for this case, he didn’t win his ticket back into college again.
Experts are people who know more information about a topic and can help make an article’s claim stronger. They aid the author by providing credibility. One example of an expert in Mac Donald’s work is professor Alan Charles Kors at the University of Pennsylvania. According to Kors, “’Universities are equipped to handle plagiarism, not rape.’” Kors’ point is that it is not a college’s place to determine what is rape and what is not rape. Rather, a university’s primary focus should be on things that involve the education of students, thus leaving the crime that happens to the police. Another credible expert that was in the article was Brett Sokolow, a rape consultant. When Mac Donald was talking about how rape victims don’t call in for help, she mentions Sokolow. In his experience, he explains that the main problem is that “on so many of our campuses, very few people ever call. And mostly, we’ve resigned ourselves to the under-utilization of these resources” (Mac Donald). In other words, Sokolow believes that this could hurt the statistics of what happens because people don’t report these crimes. An example of an expert in Goldberg’s article is David Lisak. Lisak is a “leading scholar on campus rape and a consultant for universities trying to develop responses” (Goldberg 2). According to Lisak, “’When students do report these assaults, they are much more likely to turn to someone in the university community than to law enforcement’” (Goldberg 2). He feels that students who have been assaulted corner the university because they are forced to take action. He then goes on to explain that, “Because of that, universities are stuck. They can’t ignore these reports, either morally, ethically or legally. So this is where we are: confronted with a problem that is really mostly serious criminal conduct and asking universities to respond and investigate and adjudicate” (Goldberg 2). Lisak believes that it is not a university’s place to act on these instances, but rather law enforcement’s. This is similar to that of Kors’ views in Mac Donald’s argument. Furthermore, he feels that it is not the school’s fault if the aggressor walks away innocent because the crime should have been reported to the police instead. This expert does make Goldberg’s argument more credible due to Lisak’s position and knowledge on the subject. Furthermore, this expert does very well in aiding the author’s view point and gives the argument at hand more credibility because it shows that schools do not take or want to take responsibility, thus not giving the victim justice.
Supporting evidence is proof that helps one’s argument. It is important to have because it makes one’s claim more valid. Without it, an article may not look credible or accurate. Mac Donald references a study as his evidence that involves asking women if they had been raped throughout their college years. The study yielded very few wanted results at first, so they had to change the way they were getting their data. Mac Donald states that, “rather than asking female students about rape per se, Koss [the person who started the study] asked them if they had experienced actions that she then classified as rape.” Due to Koss changing the wording, Mac Donald believes that this would make Koss’ study invalid. The reason why is that what Koss believes constitutes rape might be different from what other people think. Some individuals may say that a women wasn’t raped, but by Koss’ standards, she might have been. Pointing out the problems with the unclear definition of rape in this study makes Mac Donald’s claim stronger because it proves that people are modifying the definition of rape to yield better results. Furthermore, this is a clear opposition to Mac Donald’s argument because the study tries to prove the tenet of universities, whereas her argument wants to disprove it. Another piece of evidence that Mac Donald provides is that “A survey of sorority girls at the University of Virginia found that only 23 percent of the subjects whom the survey characterized as rape victims felt that they had been raped.” This is another example of how different people see rape differently. This evidence helps Mac Donald’s claim very well due to the fact that she said that the definition of rape varies. Contrastingly, in Goldberg’s article, she uses the 1-in-5 statistic to back up her argument. Despite Mac Donald feeling as though that statistic isn’t valid, Goldberg believes that it is indeed valid. When talking about how law enforcement lacks in help, she explains that “According to an April report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, ‘One in five women is sexually assaulted in college.’” (Goldberg 13). This provides information to people who do not know how often rape occurs. By providing this evidence, individuals will realize campus rape is a problem that should have more awareness and help to be fixed. Goldberg goes on to say that, although this statistic is often disputed, “a detailed analysis by PolitiFact [states that], ‘the overall findings in the study were on par with similar surveys conducted over the years that have measured sexual assaults on campus’” (Goldberg 2). She believes that since another study backs this statistic up, it must be true; however, this is an example of a deductive invalid conclusion. This means that Goldberg believes that it is a guaranteed truth that the 1-in-5 statistic is true. Although this is invalid because just because one study says it’s true, doesn’t mean that it is. Because of this, her evidence is weak, and this makes her argument’s credibility deteriorate.
Common ground is the part where everyone can agree before the argument comes around. It is important because it shows that the opposing sides can at least universally agree on something. Common ground is established towards the end of Mac Donald’s article. Mac Donald herself writes, “Maybe these young iconoclasts can take up another discredited idea: college is for learning.” In other words, she believes that the reformers should acknowledge the real purpose for going to college. This is an effective common ground statement, especially since it was put toward the end of the article. By putting this at the end of the article, the writer was able to grab everyone’s attention with something with which we all can agree. Everyone who goes to college is expected to learn, graduate, and get his or her degree. What other reason is there for people to go? On the contrary, common ground is established fairly early in Goldberg’s article. Goldberg herself explains, “in the nationwide controversy over the proper response to pervasive sexual assault on college campuses, there is one thing almost everyone agrees on: school disciplinary boards have rarely done a very good job of handling these cases” (13). I believe that this is a strong statement for her common ground because, instead of saying that everyone can agree with it, she instead says that almost everyone agrees. This leaves a little wiggle space for her instead of there being a definite statement. Despite her common ground being strong, I feel as though putting it in the beginning has an awkward feeling. Putting it at the end of her article, like Mac Donald did, would have a better effect on most readers.
Rape is always going to be a controversial topic, and people will always clash when it is brought up. Mac Donald presented her views in an excellent way throughout this article. Yes, she had a few bad points, but the number of good points far exceeded them. She effectively went over her unique argument by providing sufficient evidence, and that gives her a fair amount of credibility. Additionally, Goldberg’s article also presented her ideas in an effective way. Although I agree with Mac Donald’s ideas more, I was able to consider Goldberg’s side and that by itself made her argument powerful. Goldberg used a variety of information that really made me think differently. I would recommend both articles for people to read. They both provide an interesting argument. These articles allowed me to learn more about an in-depth perspective in rape culture that I didn’t even know existed. I completely agree with most of what was said in Mac Donald’s article and believe that we should take initiative to fix the way we analyze our statistics. Additionally, I also agree with Goldberg that colleges are not doing enough to help assault victims. I often found myself in the middle of the arguments because they both argued in an amazing manner. Lastly, reading opposing articles really makes people understand how others think because they are able to compare and contrast the different thoughts writers have.
Works Cited
Goldberg, Michelle. "CAMPUS RAPE CRISIS. (Cover story)." Nation, vol. 298, no. 26, 23 June 2014, pp. 12-16. Academic Search Complete, eds.b.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/ehost/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=9248d499-a461-4e69-92de-570f8670c82c%40sessionmgr103&hid=117&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=96327577&db=a9h. Accessed 10 Mar. 2017.
Mac Donald, Heather. "The Campus Rape Myth." City Journal, Dec. 2008, www.city-journal.org/html/campus-rape-myth-13061.html. Accessed 12 Feb. 2017.