But surprisingly, the debate has shifted recently to the role that the Oakwood community may have played in “spawning” Turner and somehow contributing to the assault. Even more surprisingly, this indictment of the community comes in a Washington Post article written by Kate Geiselman, an Oakwood resident who has voluntarily subjected her own children for 20 years to a place that, according to her, has a “dark side” that so harms children raised there that they become sexual predators.
Of course, this is ludicrous. Instead of being based on facts and logic, her opinions appear to be based solely on her imagination and stereotypes about Oakwood.
She opines that this “dark side” is the result of high achievement, the pressure to succeed, competition, and high-achieving kids who have never been told “no.” But she doesn’t cite any evidence that this applies to Turner specifically, or any studies indicating that high expectations and achievement generate sexual predators. There also is a contradiction in her logic, because high-achieving kids typically are more disciplined and focused, and thus are more likely to have been told “no” on more occasions, than kids who slack off and don’t take school or athletics seriously. Her solution of “lowering the bar” would necessarily result in more permissive childrearing.
Her piece also ignores research on sexual assaults showing that high achievement results in fewer, not more, of them. One study found that the incidence of sexual assaults of women age 18 to 24 is 30 percent lower for those who attend college than for those who do not. In another study, women without a high school diploma are sexually assaulted at a rate 53 percent greater than women with a diploma or some college. “Lowering the bar,” as Geiselman suggests, actually increases the risk of sexual assault.
Brock A. Turner, 20, was sentenced to six months in jail in Palo Alto, California, on June 3, 2016.
She also faults the “basement” parties in Oakwood that permit underage kids to drink alcohol “because ‘kids are gonna drink.’” But at the same time, she dismisses the notion that alcohol played a role in the sexual assault, arguing that blaming the campus drinking culture is not an excuse for the assault, and disparaging Turner’s supporters who suggest that alcohol and sexual promiscuity play a role in campus assaults.
But if she believes alcohol was not a factor, then why is she criticizing these parties? Where is the proof that Turner attended any? And since these parties have been going on for a long time, where are the other sexual predators from Oakwood that these should have “spawned”?
Indeed, where is the proof that the Oakwood community, so dark and permissive in her opinion, produces more sexual predators per-capita than any other communities.
Young people make mistakes. But it is unfair to blame parents and communities for these mistakes without having substantial proof. And to disparage Turner’s family and friends and the Oakwood community, in a national forum and without any proof at all, is inexcusable.
About the Author