Silence (again assuming no intimidation, etc.) is not equivalent to a "no," and we feel that punishing someone for engaging in behavior that was not objected to, however inappropriate that behavior may have been, is a violation of due process for the reasons outlined above.

Our definition admittedly places a burden of action on an individual to say "no" or "stop," but this is a necessary burden given the serious implications of a rape charge.

We would also like to note that throughout her letter, Fillingham consistently and repetitively refers to the victim of any rape as being a woman and the perpetrator of any rape as being a man.

Although the vast majority of sex crimes are perpetuated by men against women, debate on the subject should be gender- and sexual orientation-neutral and should focus on the nature of the criminal liability.

Rape is a legal term, even when used in a college environment, and its definition must reflect that fact. CLUH's definition in no way increases the burden of proof on accusers and clearly better protects the rights of the accused.

It is fair to ask that someone who does not want to engage in sex issue a verbal or physical indication of their wishes, and that nobody be punished for an action that was never objected to when the opportunity object existed. Allan H. Erbsen '94   Jol A. Silversmith '94   For the CLUH Executive Board