2003 - The Eighth Annual Symposium of Student Scholars

The full program book from the Eighth Annual Symposium of Student Scholars, held on April 18, 2003. Includes abstracts from the presentations and posters.https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/sssprograms/1002/thumbnail.jp

The Slippery Discourse of Sexual Consent: Feminist Acumen and Feminist Excess

The Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the Harvey Weinstein case, and the Jeffrey Epstein case have done us a valuable service. By focusing mass media attention and academic discourse on consent to sex and on assault, they have brought to a boil two issues that have been simmering for some time in feminist circles. The present essay invites readers to consider feminist writings over the last half-century that have influenced this discourse and continue to incite febrile talk today. First to be examined is the American “heartbalm” regime, an early effort to protect women from the emotional harm resulting from seduction by fraud, breach of promise to marry, and similar objectionable behavior, some of which, it has been argued, vitiates consent and should be actionable. We then examine assertions of women’s non-consent that have been used to justify new, heavy regulation: the fundamentality of rape (Susan Brownmiller), “dominance feminism” (Catharine MacKinnon), and related claims of women’s lack of agency (Robin West). These claims are set against rejoinders that women are much more powerful in the sexual realm than as portrayed by the critics, and that, by extension, determinations of legal consent should not be left only to the critics. This will bring us to an evaluation of affirmative consent as a tool for ensuring real agreement. The essay goes on to highlight the absence of reliable data on campus sexual assault. While stressing the obligation to confront such assault whenever it takes place, this discussion examines the gap between the one-in-five sexual assault data point famously reported by President Obama (i.e., the chances for women to be assaulted during their college years) and the much lower rates recorded in other studies, including so-called university Clery reports. These uncertainties would seem to militate against the stereotyping of college men as brutes, a state of affairs that is perhaps best reflected in the report of four Harvard women law professors detailing what they consider the “shocking” treatment of men in assault investigations. Focus then shifts to the #MeToo-related claim (Deborah Tuerkheimer) that, no “ifs” or “buts” provided, women should be believed in he said/she said cases. Analogizing rape to robbery - with neither consideration of their contextual difference nor concern with due process rights of men—this claim seems premised on the idea that no one questions the actual occurrence of a reported robbery. What follows is an argument against simply believing a woman’s assault complaint. Emanating straight from the trenches and provided by an experienced sexual assault investigator and former law school dean (Joan Howarth), this argument underscores the sexual ambivalence and confusion she found over the years in women complainants. Discussion turns finally to a common feature of much current discourse, one that is exemplified throughout this article: an attitude of self-righteousness made unapologetically manifest in the Wells epigraph above. This arrogance has induced men to step back in assault discussions, which, in turn, has precluded understanding of sexual dynamics, is condescending to women though upholding their primacy, and tends to poison gender relations on campus and elsewhere

Selling sin: How culture influences the sale of firearm suppressors in Australia and New Zealand

This paper is a summary of a 2011 academic study commissioned by the New South Wales Government (Game Council) investigating the possible legalizing of firearm sound moderators for hunting and shooting. The study examined the pragmatic advantages and disadvantages of this product in the event it could be made available to the general public in Australia. A comparison between Australia and New Zealand vis-à-vis public access to sound moderators highlights not only the opposite ends of the continuum adopted by two similar countries, but also the arbitrary nature of how attitudes influence product acceptability and availability. Advantages of de-criminalisation in Australia include; hearing-loss prevention, increased accuracy, reduced recoil, reduced stock disturbance, reduced noise pollution, increased safety and an increase in the potential for humane culling. Disadvantages include cost, a deleterious shift in the firearm’s centre of gravity, and the potential of criminal and civil misuse. While based largely on secondary data, the investigation found no obvious link between sound moderators and their use in petty or organized criminal activity. Further, and based upon a review of other legislative regimes where moderator use is legally permitted, the authors conclude that the benefits pertaining to moderator use by civilian shooting communities points to a need for a more informed debate on legislative change within Australia. While the author’s note the logical consequence of such findings should be a move towards de-criminalisation in Australia they also appreciate that entrenched attitudes relating to firearms, both as a product and consumer lifestyle, will likely result in impassioned minority resistance to any change in the status quo

Exploring the Shift from Physical to Cybercrime at the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic

The novel coronavirus has made an impact on virtually every aspect of our lives. The current study utilizes secondary data to identify patterns and trends related to shifting crime from the physical to the cyber domain. With millions, if not billions, people staying at home, attackers now look for new ways to commit crimes. Our findings indicate that while a lot of crimes such as robbery, assault, rape, and murder have declined at the beginning of the pandemic, we are also witnessing a rise in cybercrime, vehicle theft, and domestic violence. The current study looks specifically at phishing and what new trends are observed due to COVID-19. The current work is grounded in routine activity theory and demonstrates its relevance to both the physical and cyberspace. The implications of our work can be used by scholars who want to continue researching this new phenomenon. Practitioners can utilize our findings to look for ways to improve the corporate security posture by protecting the employees and customers working from home. Developing new phishing training and awareness programs should be focused around possible scenarios involving COVID-19. Our study suggests victims are more likely to fall prey to those during times of fear and uncertainty like the current pandemic

Final Contribution of John B. Sholley

The following is an unfinished review by Professor Sholley of Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States by William Winslow Crosskey, University of Chicago Press, 1953, two volumes, pp. 1410, $20.00

Comrades or Foes: Did the Russians Break the Law or New Ground for the First Amendment?

This Article discusses the recent decision by the United States Federal Government to indict more than a dozen Russian nationals for conspiracy to defraud the United States of America. The Government accused the Russians of staging protests, distributing false propaganda, and spreading political messages and ideologies online in an effort to affect the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election. We argue that while the Defendants violated several other laws, the majority of the acts the Government classifies as a conspiracy to defraud the United States should not be considered criminal. Rather, these acts are protected political speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution because the Russians engaged in conduct that is crucial to political discourse in a Democracy and which the Founding Fathers intended to protect. Therefore, prosecution of the Russian Defendants on that basis should cease